-
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2021This study aimed to survey dentists in Germany to identify their favored materials for the fabrication of tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) depending on the location...
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to survey dentists in Germany to identify their favored materials for the fabrication of tooth-supported single crowns (SCs) depending on the location of the abutment teeth and the preparation margin.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The survey included questions regarding demographic characteristics of dentists/their dental practice and preferred restorative materials for the fabrication of SCs for abutment teeth 16, 11, 34, and 36 with either supra- or subgingival preparation margins.
RESULTS
Between August 2019 and February 2020, 721 dentists participated in the survey; responses from 33 dentists were excluded from data analysis because the dentists did not work in Germany or provided less than one fixed dental prosthesis/month. Dentists favored ceramic materials independent of the location of the abutment tooth and preparation margin (56.6-92.2%). CAD/CAM resin composites or full metals were preferred by only a few participants. A significantly higher proportion of dentists recommended porcelain fused to metal for subgingival preparation margins than for supragingival margins (p < 0.001). Characteristics of dentists/dental practices influenced a single scenario (11 subgingival) that was dependent on the dentist's time since graduation. When asked to specify the ceramic materials, numerous participants wrote a free response (5.7-7.8%) or did not answer (0.7-4.8%).
CONCLUSIONS
Dentists in Germany selected restorative materials for SCs depending on the clinical scenario. Since numerous dentists did not specify the ceramic materials, postgraduate information and education might help to extend expertise.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The results of this survey provide insight into the favored materials of dentists for the fabrication of tooth-supported SCs.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Porcelain; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dentists; Germany; Humans; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 32556660
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03363-9 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2021New polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials with enhanced properties have been developed to improve and facilitate implant impression techniques. However, studies on their...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
New polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials with enhanced properties have been developed to improve and facilitate implant impression techniques. However, studies on their accuracy are lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the accuracy and precision of implant impressions made with some recently introduced materials on a simulated patient requiring an all-on-4 implant-supported prosthesis. Well-established polyether materials were also evaluated as a comparison. The variables considered were material type, consistency, splinting or not splinting techniques, and implant angulation.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A reference master model was made by inserting 4 implants at angles of 0, 5, and 10 degrees. Eighty impressions were made at 37 °C in wet conditions by using a standardized technique. Eight groups (n=10) were created using monophasic, single-viscosity materials (Hydrorise Implant Medium, HIM-ns; Hydrorise Implant Medium, HIM; Honigum Mono, HM; Impregum, IMP), and 2-viscosity materials (Hydrorise Implant Heavy+Light-ns, HIH+L-ns; Hydrorise Implant Heavy+Light, HIH+L; Honigum Heavy+Light, HH+L; and Permadyne and Garant [Heavy+Light, PeH+L]). Hydrorise materials were used with splinting and not splinting (ns) techniques. The reference points located on the connecting platforms of the transfer copings (TCP) were compared with the same points on the implant connecting platforms (ICP) located in the reference model. The accuracy and precision of the impressions were determined as linear 3D errors and standard deviation between each TCP-ICP couple by using an optical coordinate measuring machine (OCMM).
RESULTS
PVS materials were generally better than polyether materials, with Hydrorise materials (HIM and HIH+L) showing significantly better accuracy and precision (30.9 ±14.4 μm and 28.7 ±15.5 μm, respectively) than IMP and PeH+L polyethers (44.2 ±16 μm and 43.8 ±17.6 μm, respectively; P<.001). Honigum materials were statistically similar to Hydrorise materials (P=.765). The values shown by Hydrorise nonsplinted groups (HIH+L-ns and HIM-ns) were not statistically different from those of the splinted polyether impressions (P=.386). The viscosities (monophasic or heavy+light) had no effect on accuracy, but monophasic material positively influenced precision (HIM and HIH+L, P=.001). No correlation was found between implant angulation and accuracy (multilevel analysis and Kendall rank correlation coefficient=-0.065; P=.133).
CONCLUSIONS
Recently introduced materials designed for implant impressions showed significantly higher accuracy and precision; even with the unfavorable nonsplinting technique, the new materials performed similarly to, or better than, polyether materials. Although the transfer coping splinting technique generally improved the accuracy and precision of Hydrorise materials, the effect was significant only within HIH+L groups.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Models, Dental
PubMed: 33526247
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.10.017 -
Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology Sep 2022The purpose of this systematic review was to search in literature in which severity unintended effects are caused by dental materials in magnetic resonance imaging...
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this systematic review was to search in literature in which severity unintended effects are caused by dental materials in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), such as to evaluate whether these artifacts hamper the diagnosis in the head and neck region.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Clinical studies showing the severity of artifacts which dental materials are capable of causing in MRI of head and neck, such as their influence on diagnostic accuracy, were included in this review. The searches were conducted in four electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science), and a manual search was made in the reference lists of papers screened for full-text reading. Risk of bias was assessed using "Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2" (QUADAS-2). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
From 151 studies selected for full-reading, 19 were considered eligible for this review. Artifacts caused by orthodontic appliances were well-documented, and stainless steel brackets were the materials most likely to cause artifacts in MR imaging of head and neck. The literature was scarce for dental implants and restorations. Diagnoses within the oral cavity, but also those of the brain and craniofacial structures, were affected.
CONCLUSION
Artifacts caused by orthodontic appliances may affect the diagnosis in oral cavity and craniofacial structures. Data regarding dental implants and prosthodontics restorations were inconclusive. The severity of artifacts in MRI and their influence on diagnosis is dependent on dental material features, location in the oral cavity, and magnetic resonance parameters.
Topics: Artifacts; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Mouth; Orthodontic Appliances
PubMed: 35348371
DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20210450 -
International Dental Journal Oct 2023This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance and stress magnitude of occlusal veneers made of conventional or flowable resin composites at different minimal...
PURPOSE
This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance and stress magnitude of occlusal veneers made of conventional or flowable resin composites at different minimal thicknesses bonded on enamel or dentin.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A total of 120 sound bovine incisors were flattened and used as substrates (enamel or dentin) for the restorations. The teeth were embedded into polymethyl methacrylate and allocated into 4 groups according to the resin composite (Clearfil AP-X PLT and Clearfil Majesty Flow, Kuraray Dental) and substrate. Further, the substrates were randomly subdivided in 12 groups (N = 120, n = 10) according to the occlusal veneer minimal thickness: 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mm. The teeth were directly restored with a standardised procedure. Then, the specimens were loaded until fracture in a universal testing machine (Instron 6022, Instron Corp.). A 3-way and a 1-way analysis of variance were used to determine significant differences for each factor. Three-dimensional finite element analysis was carried out following the in vitro boundary conditions to assess the stress magnitude in the restoration during compressive loading.
RESULTS
The fracture loads were recorded into initial load to failure (ILF) and fatal load to failure (FLF). Differences were found in material for ILF and FLF, leading to an overall equal good performance in fracture load and stress distribution for both materials, regardless of the substrate. Differences in thickness were apparent in both ILF and FLF.
CONCLUSIONS
Direct conventional and flow resin composite occlusal veneers present a promising mechanical behaviour when bonded on enamel or dentin. However, caution is advised when preparing 0.5-mm minimal thickness restorations.
Topics: Animals; Cattle; Composite Resins; Dental Enamel; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration Failure; Materials Testing
PubMed: 36509557
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.11.006 -
British Dental Journal Jun 2020
Topics: Dental Amalgam; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 32541712
DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-1735-z -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2021The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry... (Review)
Review
The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2020 professional literature in restorative dentistry to inform busy dentists regarding noteworthy scientific and clinical progress over the past year. Each member of the committee brings discipline-specific expertise to this work to cover this broad topic. Specific subject areas addressed include prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; implant dentistry; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders (TMDs); sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence day-to-day dental treatment decisions with a keen eye on future trends in the profession. With the tremendous volume of dentistry and related literature being published today, this review cannot possibly be comprehensive. The purpose is to update interested readers and provide important resource material for those interested in pursuing greater detail. It remains our intent to assist colleagues in navigating the extensive volume of important information being published annually. It is our hope that readers find this work useful in successfully managing the dental patients they encounter.
Topics: Dental Care; Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Humans; Periodontics; Prosthodontics; United States
PubMed: 34489050
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.014 -
BioMed Research International 2022With the development of ceramic technology, prosthodontic ceramics are becoming a useful option for improving esthetic outcomes in dentistry. In this paper, various... (Review)
Review
With the development of ceramic technology, prosthodontic ceramics are becoming a useful option for improving esthetic outcomes in dentistry. In this paper, various ceramic materials were reviewed and evaluated, and their advantages and disadvantages and indications in oral prosthodontics were analyzed objectively. The properties of resin-based ceramics, polycrystalline ceramics, and silicate ceramics were compared and analyzed. Resin-based ceramics may replace other ceramic materials in the CAD/CAM field.
Topics: Ceramics; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Materials; Dental Porcelain; Dentistry; Materials Testing; Surface Properties
PubMed: 35898679
DOI: 10.1155/2022/8451445 -
PloS One 2023A new type of paste filling material was created using fluorogypsum, a byproduct of hydrofluoric acid, as the raw material to address the issue of the filling material's...
A new type of paste filling material was created using fluorogypsum, a byproduct of hydrofluoric acid, as the raw material to address the issue of the filling material's high cost. The effects of five factors, including gangue, fly ash, fluorogypsum, lime content, and mass concentration on the physical and mechanical properties of filling material were also examined. In addition to analyzing slump and extension changes, the filler's mineral composition and microstructure were examined using SEM and XRD examinations. The results show that the best ratio of the developed filling material was 1000g coal gangue, 300g fly ash, 300g fluorogypsum, and 50g lime and mass concentration is 78%, and its compressive strength can reach 4-5MPa at 28 days. Raw materials such as gangue and fly ash will have a certain influence on the mechanical properties of the filling material. The hydration products of the developed filling material prepared by XRD and SEM were ettringite, calcium sulfate dihydrate, and calcium silicate hydrate gel. The new fluorogypsum-based paste filling material can be used to consolidate loose rock strata and fill goaf. It solves the problem of disposal of industrial waste fluoropgypsum and also solves the problem of coal mine gangue stacking, which has a far-reaching influence on ecological environment management.
Topics: Coal Ash; Oxides; Calcium Sulfate; Dental Materials; Coal
PubMed: 37289761
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286872 -
BMC Oral Health May 2023This study aimed to evaluate the surface hardness (VHN) and biaxial flexural strength (BFS) of dual-cured bulk-fill restorative materials after solvent storage.
BACKGROUND
This study aimed to evaluate the surface hardness (VHN) and biaxial flexural strength (BFS) of dual-cured bulk-fill restorative materials after solvent storage.
METHODS
Two dual-cured bulk-fill composites (Surefil One® and Activa™ Bioactive), a light-cured bulk-fill composite (Filtek One Bulk-Fill) and a resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) were investigated. Surefil One and Activa were used in the dual-cure mode, all materials were handled according to manufacturer's instructions. For VHN determination, 12 specimens were prepared from each material and measured after 1 h (baseline), 1 d, 7 d and 30 d of storage in either water or 75% ethanol-water. For BFS test, 120 specimens were prepared (n = 30/material) and stored in water for either 1, 7 or 30 d before testing. Repeated measures MANOVA, two-way and one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post hoc test (p ≤ 0.05) were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
Filtek One had the highest VHN, while Activa had the lowest. All materials exhibited a significant increase in VHN after 1d of storage in water, except for Surefil One. After 30 d of storage, VHN increased significantly in water except for Activa, while ethanol storage caused a significant time-dependent reduction in all tested materials (p ≤ 0.05). Filtek One showed the highest BFS values (p ≤ 0.05). All the materials, except for Fuji II LC, exhibited no significant differences between 1 and 30 d BFS measurements (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Dual-cured materials had significantly lower VHN and BFS compared to the light-cured bulk-fill material. The low results of Activa VHN and Surefil One BFS, indicate that these materials should not be recommended in posterior stress-bearing areas.
Topics: Humans; Hardness; Flexural Strength; Solvents; Materials Testing; Dental Materials; Composite Resins; Ethanol; Water
PubMed: 37208664
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03047-2 -
Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of... Dec 2023This study investigated the impact of preparation design and material types on fracture strength in maxillary premolars endocrowns after thermodynamic aging.
PURPOSE
This study investigated the impact of preparation design and material types on fracture strength in maxillary premolars endocrowns after thermodynamic aging.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Eighty two-rooted maxillary premolar crowns underwent endodontic treatment (N = 80, n = 10). The teeth were categorized into ten groups (4-mm deep with no intracanal extension lithium disilicate glass ceramic & multilayer zirconia endocrowns (LE0 & ZE0); 4-mm deep with 4-mm intracanal extension in one canal (LE1 & ZE1); 4-mm deep with 2-mm intracanal extensions in both canals (LE2 & ZE2); flat overlays with no endocore (LO & ZO); glass fiber reinforced post & core and crown (LC & ZC)). After cementation, all specimens were subjected to 1500 thermocycles and 1,200,000 chewing cycles with an axial occlusal load of 49 N. A static loading test was performed at a non-axial 45° loading using a universal testing machine and failure modes (Type I: restoration debonding; Type II: restoration fracture; Type III: restoration/tooth complex fracture above bone level; Type IV: restoration/tooth complex fracture below bone level) were evaluated using a stereoscope. Data were ananalzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (alpha = 0.05).
RESULTS
The endocrowns manufactured from multilayered zirconia and pressed lithium disilicate glass ceramic exhibited a fracture load ranging between 1334 ± 332 N and 756 ± 150 N, with ZC presenting the highest and LE2 the lowest values. The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
All endocrowns tested in this study performed similar considering the different designs and materials tested. The distribution of fracture modes did not differ significantly depending on the design of the restoration and the type of material used.
Topics: Humans; Flexural Strength; Materials Testing; Computer-Aided Design; Zirconium; Ceramics; Dental Porcelain; Tooth Fractures; Dental Stress Analysis; Dental Restoration Failure
PubMed: 37839334
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2023.106184