Biomechanical considerations of chemical structure and biosafety of current ceramic biomaterials for dentistry: review and outlook of the current state of the art.

Biomaterial refers to any material, non-pharmaceutical or combination of substances of synthetic or natural origin used for any period independently or as part of a system for the purpose of healing, assisting the growth or replacement of tissues, organs or functions of the body. It is an unsustainable material that interacts with biological systems. Before being produced a biomaterial goes through a sequence of steps, which includes: 1) the definition of the problem that the material will be called to solve (treatment, replacement of the instrument, aesthetic reasons); 2) design of the device, composition and control of materials (mechanical properties, toxicity, biological response, corrosion resistance, interaction with proteins, cells and tissues), manufacture, sterilization and standardization; 3) control of the device (in experimental animals, in vitro) clinical studies, studies; and 4) monitor its long-term use in vivo, in vitro and in patients. Research for ceramic materials is evolving and because they can be porous or glassy, they find applications in medicine and biotechnology, as they can be used as fillers, covering materials and scaffolds. Therefore, ceramic biomaterials are widely used not only in the field of orthopedic and maxillofacial surgery but also in dentistry as for dental prostheses. Materials monitoring technologies allow us to monitor the three-dimensional development in space, as well as imperfections or micro-cracks in the ceramic.

The Efficacy of the RME II System Compared with a Herbst Appliance in the Treatment of Class II Skeletal Malocclusion in Growing Patients: A Retrospective Study.

(1) Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the Rapid Maxillary Expander (RME) II System compared to a Herbst appliance and a control group in the treatment of class II skeletal malocclusions in growing patients. (2) Methods: A total of 30 class II patients treated using the RME II System (group R) were compared with 30 patients treated with a Herbst appliance (group H) and 30 untreated class II children (group C). Cephalograms were compared at the start (T0) and after 24 months (T1). Nine cephalometric parameters were analyzed: SN-MP, SN-PO, ANB, AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, N-GO-ME, SN-PP, LFH, CO-GN, 1+SN, IMPA, OVERJET, and OVERBITE. Since the variables failed the normality test, a Wilcoxon test was performed for a pairwise comparison of the cephalometric measurements taken at T0 (pre-treatment) and at T1 (post-treatment). ANOVA with Tukey post hoc correction was used to evaluate the differences among the groups. (3) Results: ANOVA showed a statistically significant difference for all analyzed variables except for AR-GO-ME, AR-GO-N, and N-GO-ME. Post hoc Tukey's HSD test showed the following difference: the SN-PO angle in group H was 3.59° greater than in group R; the LFH in group H was 4.13 mm greater than in group R. The mandibular length (CO-GN) in group H was 3.94 mm greater than in group R; IMPA in group H was 6.4° greater than in group R; and the ANB angle in group H was 1.47° greater than in group R. (4) Conclusions: The RME II System is an effective therapeutic device for class II skeletal malocclusion treatment in growing patients.

Analysis of Endodontic Successes and Failures in the Removal of Fractured Endodontic Instruments during Retreatment: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis.

This study presents a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the success rates of endodontic retreatments in teeth where separated instruments are located within the roots. The search and selection of studies were conducted across two databases, SCOPUS and PubMed, as well as the Cochrane Library registry, yielding a total of 1620 records. Following the selection process, 11 studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, out of 1133 retreated teeth, there were 172 failures in instrument removal and 55 perforations. The meta-analysis results indicate that failures are more frequent when instruments are located in the apical third, with a failure rate of 21%, compared to an 8.8% failure rate in the middle/coronal third. The anatomy of the root canals, particularly the location of the separated instruments, significantly influences the success rates.

Assessment of distortion of intraoral scans of edentulous mandibular arch made with a 2-step scanning strategy: A clinical study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Manufacturers of several intraoral scanners have recommended a 2-step strategy for scanning the edentulous mandible. The 2-step technique requires scanning one side first and then moving to the other side. However, whether inconsistency in stitching occurs that results in loss of accuracy or distortion is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to measure the potential distortion of intraoral scans of edentulous mandibular arches made with a 2-step scanning strategy and to assess their differences with conventional impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty mandibular edentulous arches were scanned by 1 investigator with an intraoral scanner using a 2-step scanning strategy, and a corresponding polysulfide conventional impression was obtained. The conventional impression was then immediately scanned with the same intraoral scanner. The obtained standard tessellation language (STL) files were superimposed with a surface-matching software program. After a preliminary alignment, the STL meshes were trimmed and reoriented; then, the final alignment was carried out and meshes moved to a metrology software program where their mean distance was measured. In addition, a surface curve (SIOS) was traced on the intraoral scan from the right to left retromolar pad along the residual ridge and automatically projected onto to the conventional impression scan to obtain a new curve (SC). The mean distance between SIOS and SC was measured and recorded as an indicator of the distortion by considering the X-, Y-, and Z-axes and the overall 3-dimensional (3D) deviation. The analysis was performed for the full curve length and after dividing it into 6 regions of interest. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were used to investigate the significance of the extent of the mean 3D distance, as well as the effects of measurement positions (side and region) between and within patients on differences along the X-, Y-, and Z-axes (α=.05). RESULTS: The mean (-0.08 mm; standard error: 0.025) 3D distance between the intraoral scan and conventional impression was significantly different from zero (P=.003). No significant effect of the factor "side" was found by using generalized estimated equation models for the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, and global 3D deviations between SIOS and SC (P>.05), which appeared to exclude distortion. Conversely, a significant effect was found for the factor "region" (P<.05), with no significant differences (P>.05) between corresponding regions on the 2 sides. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoral scans of the edentulous mandibular arch made in a 2-step procedure did not exhibit significant distortion in comparison with conventional impressions.