-
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice Apr 2022Surgical procedures in posterior area of maxillary might cause an oroantral communication and iatrogenic sinusitis. An undetected oroantral communication can cause the... (Review)
Review
Surgical procedures in posterior area of maxillary might cause an oroantral communication and iatrogenic sinusitis. An undetected oroantral communication can cause the penetration of foreign bodies, such as dental impression materials, in the maxillary sinus, thereby contributing to persistent sinusitis. Given the occurrence of a very rare clinical and medicolegal case of persistent and drug-resistant sinusitis due to radiologically undetected fragments of silicone paste for dental impression in the maxillary antrum, a literature review was pursued through sensitive keywords in relevant databases for health sciences. All retrieved articles were considered and data about the kind of impression materials thrusted into the maxillary sinus, the diagnostic issues, the reported range of symptoms, and the occurrence of medicolegal issues were analyzed. The diagnosis resulted to be quite challenging and belatedly especially in case of healed oroantral communication and when the material retained in the maxillary sinus has similar radiodensity compared to the surrounding normal or inflammatory tissues. The case was then discussed in comparison with the reviewed literature for both clinical and medicolegal issues. Hints were provided to professionals to face the challenging diagnosis in similar rare cases and to avoid the possible related litigation.
Topics: Foreign Bodies; Humans; Maxillary Sinus; Maxillary Sinusitis; Oroantral Fistula; Sinusitis
PubMed: 35439893
DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_1662_21 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Dec 2022This work aimed to synthesize a novel injectable alginate impression material and evaluate its accuracy.
OBJECTIVES
This work aimed to synthesize a novel injectable alginate impression material and evaluate its accuracy.
METHODS
Certain proportions of sodium alginate, trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate, potassium fluorotitanate, diatomaceous earth, and other ingredients were dissolved in water and mixed evenly with a planetary centrifugal mixer to obtain a certain viscosity base paste. Certain proportions of calcium sulfate hemihydrate, magnesium oxide, glycerin, and polyethylene glycol (PEG) 400 were mixed evenly with a planetary centrifugal mixer to obtain the reactor paste with the same viscosity as the base paste. The base and reactor pastes were poured into a two-cylinder cartridge at a 2∶1 volume ratio. A gun device was used to accomplish mixing by compressing materials into a mixing tip. The samples were divided into three groups: injectable alginate impression materials (IA group) as the experimental group, and Jeltrate alginate impression materials (JA group) and Silagum-putty/light addition silicone rubber impression materials (SI group) as the two control groups.
RESULTS
Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed that the injectable alginate impression materials had a denser structure and fewer bubbles than the commercial alginate impression material. The accuracy of the three kinds of impression materials was evaluated by 3D image superposition. The deviations between the three test group models and the standard model (trueness) were 49.58 μm±1.453 μm (IA group), 54.75 μm±7.264 μm (JA group), and 30.92 μm±1.013 μm (SI group). The deviations of the models within each test group (precision) were 85.79 μm±8.191 μm (IA group), 97.65 μm±11.060 μm (JA group), and 56.51 μm±4.995 μm (SI group). Significant differences in trueness and precision were found among the three kinds of impression materials (<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of the new injectable alginate impression material was better than that of the traditional powder-type alginate impression material but worse than that of the addition silicone rubber impression materials. The novel injec-table alginate impression material demonstrated good operation performance and impression accuracy, showing broad application prospect.
Topics: Alginates; Silicone Elastomers; Dental Impression Materials; Powders
PubMed: 36416318
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2022.06.006 -
Cureus Oct 2022Controlling the cross-contamination between the dental clinic and laboratory is of utmost importance to maintain the health of dental healthcare personnel (DHCP) and... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Controlling the cross-contamination between the dental clinic and laboratory is of utmost importance to maintain the health of dental healthcare personnel (DHCP) and patients. The aim of this paper was to review the current literature with regard to the use of chlorhexidine as a prosthetic disinfectant in prosthodontic practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A scoping review of the literature was performed in Medline/PubMed, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library. A search for all literature published from 1980 to 2021 was based on the following keywords: ['Chlorhexidine/gluconate' OR 'chlorhexidine', OR 'gluconate', OR 'denture disinfectants', OR 'antimicrobial', OR 'disinfectant', OR 'impression disinfectants, OR prosthesis' OR 'biofilm, microbiology'] OR [teeth]. We reviewed the disinfectant in terms of its mechanism of action, antimicrobial effectiveness, disinfection techniques, clinical applications, corrosiveness/damage to the structure of prostheses, and reasonable shelf life.
RESULTS
Chlorhexidine was tested under different concentrations ranging from 0.2 to 5%. It provided a significant reduction in biofilm viability but had a minimum effect on with a variable effect result that showed no significant differences in the dimensional changes by immersion of alginate dental impressions for no more than 10 minutes and no clinically significant dimensional differences on aluwax, polyether, condensation siloxane, and polyvinyl siloxane were noticed. Nonetheless, chlorhexidine altered the surface of the silicone and acrylic resins and affected the long-term hardness of the relining material.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this review, the use of chlorhexidine disinfectant demonstrates a good measure in the reduction of contamination and cross-infection and has a minimal effect on the dimensional stability of most impression materials. Further studies with in-vitro testing are required to confirm these findings.
PubMed: 36415428
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.30566 -
Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences Feb 2024Smart materials encompass a variety of substances, including smart antimicrobial peptides, pit and fissure sealants, impression materials, cement, and sutures. These... (Review)
Review
Smart materials encompass a variety of substances, including smart antimicrobial peptides, pit and fissure sealants, impression materials, cement, and sutures. These materials can change properties under specific stimuli such as temperature, stress, moisture, pH, or electric and magnetic fields. These constituents signify the commencement of a novel era or epoch in the field of smart dentistry and exhibit the potential for enhanced efficacy in the future.
PubMed: 38595377
DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_550_23 -
Biocontrol Science 2021Dental materials are inevitably contaminated with oral microorganisms. To prevent transmission of infectious diseases, impressions need to be disinfected. In the present...
Dental materials are inevitably contaminated with oral microorganisms. To prevent transmission of infectious diseases, impressions need to be disinfected. In the present study, we examined the disinfection effects on impression materials and biofilm removal by sodium dichloroisocyanurate (SDIC). Exponentially growing Streptococcus mutans, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans, and dental plaque bacteria were suspended in phosphate buffered saline (PBS) and exposed for 1, 5 and 10 min to 1 mL of the 10 ppm, 100 ppm, 1,000 ppm, and 10,000 ppm SDIC solutions. The bactericidal effect was evaluated by colony forming units of each microorganisms. Moreover, the effect of SDIC solution on S. mutans biofilm was examined. Bactericidal effects of SDIC solutions on oral bacteria on dental impression surfaces were assessed and the surface quality of dental casts after immersion in SDIC solution for 30 min was observed under a scanning electron microscope. The number of all bacterial strains, including plaque bacteria, were significantly decreased by SDIC solution treatment in a dose-dependent manner. Significant S. mutans biofilm removing activity of SDIC was observed in 1,000 and 10,000 ppm solution. The number of oral bacteria adhering to the surfaces of impressions markedly decreased following 10-min immersion in the 1,000 ppm SDIC solution. The 30-min immersion of dental impression in the 1,000 ppm SDIC solution did not adversely affect the surface roughness of dental casts. The results indicate that SDIC Solution is useful to deactivate oral bacteria on dental impression.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Biofilms; Dental Impression Materials; Disinfection; Streptococcus mutans; Triazines
PubMed: 33716245
DOI: 10.4265/bio.26.17 -
Cureus Aug 2023Addition silicones have revolutionized the field of fixed prosthodontics because of their dimensional stability, sufficient tear strength and excellent detail... (Review)
Review
Addition silicones have revolutionized the field of fixed prosthodontics because of their dimensional stability, sufficient tear strength and excellent detail reproduction. This review study aims to provide a detailed description of the essential variables to be taken into account during the process of making addition silicone impressions in fixed prosthodontics. These variables include the selection of appropriate tray type, size, and fabrication; the use of tray adhesive; gingival displacement techniques; manipulation of the impression material; the choice of the impression material's viscosity; impression techniques; and the proper insertion, removal, disinfection, and pouring of the cast. Additionally, this review aims to help doctors produce high-quality impressions by empowering them to critically assess the impressions to spot mistakes and motivating them to redo impressions that have serious problems before submitting them to the laboratory.
PubMed: 37746395
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44014 -
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2022Dental impressions are contaminated with potentially pathogenic microorganisms when they come into contact with patient blood, saliva, and plaque. Numerous disinfectants... (Review)
Review
Dental impressions are contaminated with potentially pathogenic microorganisms when they come into contact with patient blood, saliva, and plaque. Numerous disinfectants are used; however, no sole disinfectant can be designated as universal for all the impression materials. Thus, the aim of this study is to systemically review the literature to evaluate the effect of the existing disinfection procedures on the bacterial colonization of dental impression materials. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the PRISMA statement. PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and SciELO databases were screened up to April 2021. Eligibility criteria included in vitro studies reporting the antibacterial activity of disinfectant solutions in dental impression materials. The meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3.5). A global comparison was performed with the standardized mean difference based on random-effect models at a significance level of α = 0.05. A total of seven studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies described the effect of disinfection processes with chlorhexidine gluconate, alcohol, sodium hypochlorite, glutaraldehyde, and hydrogen peroxide in alginate, polyvinyl siloxane, and polyether impression materials. The meta-analyses showed that the use of chlorhexidine, alcohol, glutaraldehyde, and sodium hypochlorite reduced the colony-forming units by a milliliter (CFU/mL) in alginate (p < 0.001). On the other hand, glutaraldehyde, sodium hypochlorite, and alcohol reduced the CFU/mL in polyvinyl siloxane (p < 0.001). Finally, alcohol and glutaraldehyde reduced the CFU/mL in polyether material (p < 0.001). High heterogenicity was observed for the alginate and polyvinyl siloxane materials (I2 = 74%; I2 = 90%). Based on these in vitro studies, the disinfection of impression materials with several disinfection agents reduces the CFU/mL count.
PubMed: 35324812
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9030123 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Jun 2023To compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone-level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one-step tooth-implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed-tray, and open-tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post-hoc test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS
For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm ) followed by open-tray (0.1914 mm ), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm ), closed-tray (0.2422 mm ), and wax relief (0.2585 mm ) techniques (p < 0.05). For the prepared tooth, wax relief (0.0988 mm ) had the highest accuracy followed by occlusal matrix (0.1211 mm ), open-tray (0.1663 mm ), closed-tray (0.1737 mm ), and intraoral scanning (0.4903 mm ) technique (p < 0.05). For both dental implant and prepared tooth, occlusal matrix (0.2431 mm ) had the highest accuracy followed by open-tray (0.2574 mm ), wax relief (0.2693 mm ), closed-tray (0.2862 mm ), and intraoral scanning (0.3192 mm ) technique (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
The compared simultaneous tooth-implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Impression Materials; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy; Models, Dental
PubMed: 37042090
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.737 -
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic... Oct 2015Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Utility of various dental materials ranging from diagnosis to rehabilitation for the management of oral diseases are not devoid of posing a potential risk of inducing allergic reactions to the patient, technician and dentist. This review aims to develop a systematic approach for the selection and monitoring of dental materials available in the market thereby giving an insight to predict their risk of inducing allergic reactions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Our data included 71 relevant articles which included 60 case reports, 8 prospective studies and 3 retrospective studies. The source of these articles was Pub Med search done with the following terms: allergies to impression materials, sodium hypochlorite, Ledermix paste, zinc oxide eugenol, formaldehyde, Latex gloves, Methyl methacrylate, fissure sealant, composites, mercury, Nickel-chromium, Titanium, polishing paste and local anaesthesia. All the relevant articles and their references were analysed. The clinical manifestations of allergy to different dental materials based on different case reports were reviewed.
RESULTS
After reviewing the literature, we found that the dental material reported to cause most adverse reactions in patients is amalgam and the incidence of oral lichenoid reactions adjacent to amalgam restorations occur more often than other dental materials.
CONCLUSION
The most common allergic reactions in dental staff are allergies to latex, acrylates and formaldehyde. While polymethylmethacrylates and latex trigger delayed hypersensitivity reactions, sodium metabisulphite and nickel cause immediate reactions. Over the last few years, due to the rise in number of patients with allergies from different materials, the practicing dentists should have knowledge about documented allergies to known materials and thus avoid such allergic manifestations in the dental clinic.
PubMed: 26557634
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/15640.6589 -
Polymers Jul 2022The paper presents the influence of impression methods, polymer materials, and implant angulation on the accuracy of the definitive working model for the production of...
The paper presents the influence of impression methods, polymer materials, and implant angulation on the accuracy of the definitive working model for the production of implant-supported dental restorations, based on the analysis of results obtained using different impression methods, materials, and parallel and angulated implants. The study findings indicate that all aforementioned factors impact the accuracy of the definitive working model. Specifically, 20° implant angulation in relation to the vertical plane has a greater impact on the impression accuracy compared to parallel implants. The open and splint method in combination with addition silicone, as well as the splint method and polyether combination yielded more accurate results when using implants under 20° angulation compared to other method and material combinations. The splint method in combination with addition silicone resulted in the smallest mean deviations from the center of the parallel implant base compared to other combinations of methods and materials. Analysis results further revealed statistically significant differences in the measured indicators across impression methods, implants, and polymer materials.
PubMed: 35890598
DOI: 10.3390/polym14142821