Alveolar Ridge Preservation Using the One-Piece Autologous Tuberosity Graft: A Clinical, Radiological, and Histological Pilot Study.

This prospective study investigated clinically and radiologically the effectiveness of the use of a combined hard and soft tissue graft retrieved from the maxillary tuberosity and designed for alveolar ridge preservation following tooth extraction. Seven patients scheduled for a single mono-rooted tooth extraction were included in the study. After atraumatic extraction, sockets were filled with a "one-piece" dual tissue graft harvested from the tuberosity using an adjusted trephine. CBCTs were performed before the extraction and 4 months after ridge preservation, to analyze the vertical and horizontal alterations of the ridge, using ITK-Snap software. Clinical measurements of both soft and hard tissues were also assessed during the extraction and implant placement. All sites healed uneventfully. After 4 months, the 3D super-imposition of both CBCTs showed a mean bone volume resorption of 65 ± 76.7 mm3 (10.2 ± 10%). The mean horizontal reduction at 2, 4, and 6 mm from the top of the crest was respectively 1.5 ± 1.3 mm, 0.47 ± 1.4 mm and 0.57 ± 0.7 mm, while the mean vertical loss was 0.026 mm ± 2 mm. The mean soft tissue horizontal gain was 1.73 ± 1.12 mm. The "one-piece" autologous tuberosity graft was proven to be a safe and effective alveolar ridge preservation technique and may represent a feasible, user-friendly, time saving, low-cost solution for minimizing dimensional loss following tooth extraction.

Adhesion of Resin to Lithium Disilicate with Different Surface Treatments before and after Salivary Contamination-An In-Vitro Study.

The salivary contamination occurring at the try-in procedures of lithium disilicate (LDS) can jeopardize their bond strength. Various laboratory reports have concluded that applying 37% phosphoric acid (H3PO4) could be considered as a predictable way of removing salivary contaminants. An experimental method that consists of sealing the intaglio of the ceramic restorations with a layer of cured adhesive could allow consequent time saving for dental practitioners. It is, besides, necessary to establish an optimal decontamination protocol. Hence, this study aimed to determine the most efficient surface treatment, before and after salivary contamination, by comparing the adhesion between resin and LDS. In order to do so, five groups of ten specimens (n = 10) each underwent the different types of surface treatments before bonding, followed by 2500 cycles in the thermocycler. A shear bond strength (SBS) test was then conducted on a universal testing machine (YLE GmbH Waldstraße Bad König, Germany), followed by a fracture-type analysis on an optical microscope (Olympus BX53, Shinjuku, Tokyo, Japan). Statistical analysis was set with a level of significance of α = 0.05. The surface treatment significantly affected the SBS results. The decontamination with HF (12.59 ± 2.71 MPa) and H3PO4 (13.11 ± 1.03 MPa) obtained the highest values, silanizing only before contamination obtained intermediate values (11.74 ± 3.49 MPa), and silanizing both before and after the salivary contamination (10.41 ± 2.75 MPa) along with applying a bonding agent before contamination (9.65 ± 1.99 MPa) resulted in the lowest values. In conclusion, H3PO4 proved to be efficient, thus, allowing the practitioner to avoid the clinical use of HF; it can, therefore, be considered as a valid alternative. Presilanization and resilanization of specimens, along with applying a bonding agent before contamination, did not yield satisfying results.

A Two-Year Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of a Nanohybrid Composite Resin to a Flowable Composite Resin.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective in vivo study aimed to compare the clinical behavior of a flowable composite resin (Genial Universal Flo, GC) and a nanohybrid universal composite resin (Tetric Evo Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent) used in Class I and II direct esthetic restorations in posterior teeth. METHODS: A total of 108 Class I and II direct restorations were performed in patients aged between 20 and 60 years. The originality of this study lies in the fact that both materials were placed in pairs, in the same clinical environment (i.e., the same patient and the same type of tooth). The evaluations were performed now of restoration and after 2-weeks, 6-, 12-, and 24-months intervals using clinical examination, clinical photographs, and radiological examination, according to modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test and chi-square analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, the universal composite resin showed better esthetic properties such as surface luster, surface staining marginal staining. Both materials regressed significantly over time with no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both flowable and nanohybrid composite resins exhibit acceptable clinical performance. The present 24 months of evaluation of different composites showed that the G-ænial Universal Flo could be an effective esthetic material for posterior restoration. No significant difference between both materials over time concerning surface luster, surface staining, and marginal staining.