-
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2023The cementation of indirect restoration is one of the most important steps in prosthetic and restorative dentistry. Cementation aims to bond the prosthetic restoration... (Review)
Review
The cementation of indirect restoration is one of the most important steps in prosthetic and restorative dentistry. Cementation aims to bond the prosthetic restoration to the prepared enamel or enamel and dentine. Successful cementation protocols prevent biofilm formation at the margin between tooth and restoration and minimize mechanical and biological complications. With the advancements in dental cements, they have been modified to be versatile in terms of handling, curing, and bond strengths. This review presents updates on dental cements, focusing on the composition, properties, advantages, limitations, and indications of the various cements available. Currently, dental restorations are made from various biomaterials, and depending on each clinical case, an appropriate luting material will be selected. There is no luting material that can be universally used. Therefore, it is important to distinguish the physical, mechanical, and biological properties of luting materials in order to identify the best options for each case. Nowadays, the most commonly used dental cements are glass-ionomer and resin cement. The type, shade, thickness of resin cement and the shade of the ceramic, all together, have a tangible influence on the final restoration color. Surface treatments of the restoration increase the microtensile bond strength. Hence, the proper surface treatment protocol of both the substrate and restoration surfaces is needed before cementation. Additionally, the manufacturer's instructions for the thin cement-layer thickness are important for the long-term success of the restoration.
Topics: Materials Testing; Resin Cements; Biocompatible Materials; Glass Ionomer Cements; Cementation; Dental Cements; Surface Properties; Composite Resins
PubMed: 36838607
DOI: 10.3390/molecules28041619 -
Journal of Dental Research Mar 2023There have been significant advances in adhesive dentistry in recent decades, with efforts being made to improve the mechanical and bonding properties of resin-based... (Review)
Review
There have been significant advances in adhesive dentistry in recent decades, with efforts being made to improve the mechanical and bonding properties of resin-based dental adhesive materials. Various attempts have been made to achieve versatility, introducing functional monomers and silanes into the materials' composition to enable the chemical reaction with tooth structure and restorative materials and a multimode use. The novel adhesive materials also tend to be simpler in terms of clinical use, requiring reduced number of steps, making them less technique sensitive. However, these materials must also be reliable and have a long-lasting bond with different substrates. In order to fulfill these arduous tasks, different chemical constituents and different techniques are continuously being developed and introduced into dental adhesive materials. This critical review aims to discuss the concepts behind novel monomers, bioactive molecules, and alternative techniques recently implemented in adhesive dentistry. Incorporating monomers that are more resistant to hydrolytic degradation and functional monomers that enhance the micromechanical retention and improve chemical interactions between adhesive resin materials and various substrates improved the performance of adhesive materials. The current trend is to blend bioactive molecules into adhesive materials to enhance the mechanical properties and prevent endogenous enzymatic degradation of the dental substrate, thus ensuring the longevity of resin-dentin bonds. Moreover, alternative etching materials and techniques have been developed to address the drawbacks of phosphoric acid dentin etching. Altogether, we are witnessing a dynamic era in adhesive dentistry, with advancements aiming to bring us closer to simple and reliable bonding. However, simplification and novelty should not be achieved at the expense of material properties.
Topics: Dental Cements; Dental Bonding; Resin Cements; Acid Etching, Dental; Dental Materials; Materials Testing; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Dentin; Composite Resins
PubMed: 36694473
DOI: 10.1177/00220345221145673 -
Journal of Dental Research Feb 2018Zirconias, the strongest of the dental ceramics, are increasingly being fabricated in monolithic form for a range of clinical applications. Y-TZP (yttria-stabilized... (Review)
Review
Zirconias, the strongest of the dental ceramics, are increasingly being fabricated in monolithic form for a range of clinical applications. Y-TZP (yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal) is the most widely used variant. However, current Y-TZP ceramics on the market lack the aesthetics of competitive glass-ceramics and are therefore somewhat restricted in the anterior region. This article reviews the progressive development of currently available and next-generation zirconias, representing a concerted drive toward greater translucency while preserving adequate strength and toughness. Limitations of efforts directed toward this end are examined, such as reducing the content of light-scattering alumina sintering aid or incorporating a component of optically isotropic cubic phase into the tetragonal structure. The latest fabrication routes based on refined starting powders and dopants, with innovative sintering protocols and associated surface treatments, are described. The need to understand the several, often complex, mechanisms of long-term failure in relation to routine laboratory test data is presented as a vital step in bridging the gaps among material scientist, dental manufacturer, and clinical provider.
Topics: Ceramics; Dental Materials; Dental Stress Analysis; Esthetics, Dental; Humans; Surface Properties; Yttrium; Zirconium
PubMed: 29035694
DOI: 10.1177/0022034517737483 -
Dental Materials Journal Jan 2020This review scientifically compares the properties of zirconia and titanium, but does not identify the best among them as an implant material. Surface treatment and... (Review)
Review
This review scientifically compares the properties of zirconia and titanium, but does not identify the best among them as an implant material. Surface treatment and modification to improve tissue bonding and inhibit bacterial adhesion are not considered in this review. The mechanical properties of titanium are superior to those of zirconia; some studies have shown that zirconia can be used as a dental implant, especially as an abutment. Extensive surface treatment research is ongoing to inhibit bacterial adhesion and improve osseointegration and soft tissue adhesion phenomena which make it difficult to evaluate properties of the materials themselves without surface treatment. Osseointegration of titanium is superior to that of zirconia itself without surface treatment; after surface treatment, both materials show comparable osseointegration. The surface morphology is more important for osseointegration than the surface composition. To inhibit bacterial adhesion, zirconia is superior to titanium, and hence, more suitable for abutments. Both materials show similar capability for soft tissue adhesion.
Topics: Dental Abutments; Dental Implants; Dental Materials; Osseointegration; Surface Properties; Titanium; Zirconium
PubMed: 31666488
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2019-172 -
The International Journal of... 2014This review aimed to evaluate the documented clinical success of zirconia based crowns in clinical trials. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
This review aimed to evaluate the documented clinical success of zirconia based crowns in clinical trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for original studies reporting on the clinical performance of tooth- or implant-supported zirconia-based crowns, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Science Direct. The electronic search was complemented by manual searches of the bibliographies of all retrieved full-text articles and reviews as well as a hand search of the following journals: International Journal of Prosthodontics, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, and Clinical Oral Implants Research.
RESULTS
The search yielded 3,216 titles. Based on preestablished criteria, 42 full-text articles were obtained. While 16 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, only 3 randomized controlled trials were reported. Seven studies reported on tooth-supported and 4 on implant-supported crowns, and 5 studies reported on both types of support. Ten studies on tooth-supported and 7 on implant supported crowns provided sufficient material for statistical analysis. Life table analysis revealed cumulative 5-year survival rates of 95.9% for tooth-supported and 97.1% for implant-supported crowns. For implant-supported crowns, the most common reasons for failure were technical (veneering material fractures). For tooth-supported crowns, technical (veneering material fractures, loss of retention) and biologic (endodontic/ periodontic) reasons for failure were equally common. The most common complications for implant-supported crowns were veneering material fractures and bleeding on probing. For tooth-supported crowns, the most common complications were loss of retention, endodontic treatment, veneering material fractures, and bleeding on probing.
CONCLUSION
The results suggest that the success rate of tooth-supported and implant-supported zirconia-based crowns is adequate, similar, and comparable to that of conventional porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns. These results are, however, based on a relatively small number of studies, many that are not controlled clinical trials. Well-designed studies with large patient groups and long follow-up times are needed before general recommendations for the use of zirconia-based restorations can be provided.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Crowns; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Zirconium
PubMed: 24392475
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.3647 -
International Journal of Molecular... Nov 2019At present, researchers in the field of biomaterials are focusing on the oral hard and soft tissue engineering with bioactive ingredients by activating body immune cells... (Review)
Review
At present, researchers in the field of biomaterials are focusing on the oral hard and soft tissue engineering with bioactive ingredients by activating body immune cells or different proteins of the body. By doing this natural ground substance, tissue component and long-lasting tissues grow. One of the current biomaterials is known as bioactive glass (BAG). The bioactive properties make BAG applicable to several clinical applications involving the regeneration of hard tissues in medicine and dentistry. In dentistry, its uses include dental restorative materials, mineralizing agents, as a coating material for dental implants, pulp capping, root canal treatment, and air-abrasion, and in medicine it has its applications from orthopedics to soft-tissue restoration. This review aims to provide an overview of promising and current uses of bioactive glasses in dentistry.
Topics: Animals; Biocompatible Materials; Dental Materials; Dentistry; Glass; Humans; Tissue Engineering
PubMed: 31783484
DOI: 10.3390/ijms20235960 -
Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods Jun 2019A wide range of compounds are utilized in dentistry such as dental composites, resins, and implants. The successful clinical use of dental materials relies on theirm... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
A wide range of compounds are utilized in dentistry such as dental composites, resins, and implants. The successful clinical use of dental materials relies on theirm physiochemical properties as well as biological and toxicological reliability. Different local and systemic toxicities of dental materials have been reported. Placement of these materials in oral cavity for a long time period might yield unwanted reactions. An extensive variety of materials is used in dentistry including filling materials, restorative materials, intracanal medicines, prosthetic materials, different types of implants, liners, and irrigants. The increasing rate in development of the novel materials with applications in the dental field has led to an increased consciousness of the biological risks and tempting restrictions of these materials. The biocompatibility of a biomaterial used for the replacement or filling of biological tissue such as teeth always had a high concern within the health care disciplines for patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Any material used in humans should be tested before clinical application. There are many tests evaluating biocompatibility of these materials at the point of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical investigations.
RESULTS
The current review discusses the potential toxicity of dental material and screening of their biocompatibility.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
It is essential to use healthy and safe materials medical approaches. In dentistry, application of different materials in long-term oral usage demands low or nontoxic agents gains importance for both patients and the staff. Furthermore, screening tests should evaluate any potential toxicity before clinical application.
Topics: Biocompatible Materials; Dental Materials; Humans; Materials Testing
PubMed: 30642212
DOI: 10.1080/15376516.2019.1566424 -
JPMA. the Journal of the Pakistan... Mar 2020Recent advances in the field of endodontics have greatly improved the outcome and success rate of dental materials. For last three decades, there has been great interest... (Review)
Review
Recent advances in the field of endodontics have greatly improved the outcome and success rate of dental materials. For last three decades, there has been great interest in the development of bioactive dental material with the ability to interact and induce surrounding dental tissues to promote regeneration of pulpal and periradicular tissues. As these bioactive materials are mainly based on calcium silicates, they are also referred to as Calcium Silicate materials. The first material introduced was Mineral Tri-oxide Aggregate, which, due to its favourable biological properties, gained importance initially. However, later, due to its drawbacks, liked is colouration, long setting time and difficult manipulation, several modifications were done and newer bioactive materials, such as Biodentine, BioAggregate, Endosequence, Calcium-Enriched Mixture etc., were developed. The main applications of these materials are for pulp capping (direc t/indirec t), pulpotomy, perforation repair, resorption defects, apexogenesis and as retrograde filling materials, apexification and endodontic sealers. This review discusses the various types of bioactive materials, their composition, setting mechanism, and literature evidence for current applications.
Topics: Bone Substitutes; Calcium Compounds; Calcium Hydroxide; Dental Materials; Humans; Hydroxyapatites; Regenerative Endodontics; Silicates
PubMed: 32207434
DOI: 10.5455/JPMA.16942 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Feb 2018To optimize the 3D printing of a dental material for provisional crown and bridge restorations using a low-cost stereolithography 3D printer; and compare its mechanical...
OBJECTIVES
To optimize the 3D printing of a dental material for provisional crown and bridge restorations using a low-cost stereolithography 3D printer; and compare its mechanical properties against conventionally cured provisional dental materials.
METHODS
Samples were 3D printed (25×2×2mm) using a commercial printable resin (NextDent C&B Vertex Dental) in a FormLabs1+ stereolithography 3D printer. The printing accuracy of printed bars was determined by comparing the width, length and thickness of samples for different printer settings (printing orientation and resin color) versus the set dimensions of CAD designs. The degree of conversion of the resin was measured with FTIR, and both the elastic modulus and peak stress of 3D printed bars was determined using a 3-point being test for different printing layer thicknesses. The results were compared to those for two conventionally cured provisional materials (Integrity, Dentsply; and Jet, Lang Dental Inc.).
RESULTS
Samples printed at 90° orientation and in a white resin color setting was chosen as the most optimal combination of printing parameters, due to the comparatively higher printing accuracy (up to 22% error), reproducibility and material usage. There was no direct correlation between printing layer thickness and elastic modulus or peak stress. 3D printed samples had comparable modulus to Jet, but significantly lower than Integrity. Peak stress for 3D printed samples was comparable to Integrity, and significantly higher than Jet. The degree of conversion of 3D printed samples also appeared higher than that of Integrity or Jet.
SIGNIFICANCE
Our results suggest that a 3D printable provisional restorative material allows for sufficient mechanical properties for intraoral use, despite the limited 3D printing accuracy of the printing system of choice.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Denture, Partial; Elastic Modulus; Humans; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Software; Surface Properties
PubMed: 29110921
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.003 -
Dental Materials Journal Mar 2019Currently, much has been published related to conventional resin-based composites and adhesives; however, little information is available about bioceramics-based... (Review)
Review
Currently, much has been published related to conventional resin-based composites and adhesives; however, little information is available about bioceramics-based restorative materials. The aim was to structure this topic into its component parts and to highlight the translational research that has been conducted up to the present time. A literature search was done from indexed journals up to September 2017. The main search terms used were based on dental resin-based composites, dental adhesives along with bioactive glass and the calcium phosphate family. The results showed that in 123 articles, amorphous calcium phosphate (39.83%), hydroxyapatite (23.5%), bioactive glass (16.2%), dicalcium phosphate (5.69%), monocalcium phosphate monohydrate (3.25%), and tricalcium phosphate (2.43%) have been used in restorative materials. Moreover, seven studies were found related to a newly developed commercial bioactive composite. The utilization of bioactive materials for tooth restorations can promote remineralization and a durable seal of the tooth-material interface.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Cements; Dental Materials; Glass; Materials Testing
PubMed: 30381635
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2018-039