The Effectiveness of Cold Atmospheric Plasma (CAP) on Bacterial Reduction in Dental Implants: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of dental implants has revolutionized the management of tooth loss. However, the placement of clinical implants exposes them to complex oral environment and numerous microscopic entities, such as bacteria. Cold atmospheric plasma (CAP) is often used to treat the surfaces of dental implants, which alters morphological features and effectively reduces bacterial load. PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to assess the existing literature on the bactericidal properties of CAP when used on various kinds of dental implant surfaces. REVIEW METHOD: An in-depth examination of MEDLINE/PubMed and EMBASE was performed to identify relevant studies, with the most recent search conducted in May 2023. Studies were selected based on their exploration of CAP's effects on dental implants compared to control groups, focusing on CAP's bactericidal efficacy. However, studies that lacked a control group or that failed to measure bactericidal effects were excluded. RESULTS: After applying the selection criteria, 15 studies were ultimately included in the systematic review. The collected data suggest that CAP can effectively reduce bacterial loads on dental implant surfaces, including pathogens like Streptococcus mitis and Staphylococcus aureus. Furthermore, CAP appears to combat biofilms and plaques that are key contributors to periimplantitis. CONCLUSION: CAP emerges as a promising treatment option, exhibiting significant bactericidal activity on dental implant surfaces. CAP can decrease the rates of bacterial biofilm and plaque formation, leading to improved outcomes for dental implant patients.

Polymeric Denture Base Materials: A Review.

An ideal denture base must have good physical and mechanical properties, biocompatibility, and esthetic properties. Various polymeric materials have been used to construct denture bases. Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) is the most used biomaterial for dentures fabrication due to its favorable properties, which include ease of processing and pigmenting, sufficient mechanical properties, economy, and low toxicity. This article aimed to comprehensively review the current knowledge about denture base materials (DBMs) types, properties, modifications, applications, and construction methods. We searched for articles about denture base materials in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase. Journals covering topics including dental materials, prosthodontics, and restorative dentistry were also combed through. Denture base material variations, types, qualities, applications, and fabrication research published in English were considered. Although PMMA has several benefits and gained popularity as a denture base material, it has certain limitations and cannot be classified as an ideal biomaterial for fabricating dental prostheses. Accordingly, several studies have been performed to enhance the physical and mechanical properties of PMMA by chemical modifications and mechanical reinforcement using fibers, nanofillers, and hybrid materials. This review aimed to update the current knowledge about DBMs' types, properties, applications, and recent developments. There is a need for specific research to improve their biological properties due to patient and dental staff adverse reactions to possibly harmful substances produced during their manufacturing and use.

Clinical performance of single implant-supported ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Evidence relating to the choice of materials for single implant-supported crowns is sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess articles that compared the clinical performance of ceramic and metal-ceramic (MC) implant-supported single crowns with regard to prosthesis failure, complication rate, and patient satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) was performed. The last search was conducted in December 2019. Randomized clinical trials comparing ceramic and MC implant-supported single crowns with at least a 12-month follow-up were included, all of which were published in English. The pooled effects were presented as both a risk difference (RD) and mean difference according to the type of data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Seven randomized clinical trials fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled data did not show any statistically significant differences concerning prosthesis failure (RD: 0.000, 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.06), marginal bone loss (mean difference [MD]: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.75 to 0.35), mechanical complications (RD: -0.06, 95% CI: -0.18 to 0.07), biological complications (RD: 0.02, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.11), or patient satisfaction (MD: 4.86, 95% CI: -2.86 to 12.58). CONCLUSIONS: Ceramic and MC crowns had similar outcomes with regard to prosthesis failure, mechanical and biological complication rates, and patient satisfaction. As a result, the selection of single implant crown material depends on the preference of the dentist and patient.