Liquid chromatography on a centrifugal platform for separation and collection of water-soluble dyes.

A reversed-phase chromatographic process is developed on a centrifugal platform to separate and collect water-soluble dyes from a mixture. A separation column filled with C18-reversed phase silica gel was used to separate the components from a mixture and the eluate was collected by a series of collecting chambers. The purified components can then be identified and extracted from the collecting chambers. The effects of the silica gel's particle size (7-10, 20-45, and 46-63 µm) and the platform's rotational speed (1000, 1500, 2000 RPM) on the separation and collection efficiency were investigated. Experimental results showed that dye separation could be well performed in the column with smaller-sized silica gels (7-10 µm) under a low rotational speed (1000 RPM). However, for the eluate collection, the high eluent flowrate and long processing time resulted in a convective band-broadening problem in the collecting chambers, which affected the recovery ratio of the dyes. Experimental results showed that the convective band broadening effect can be reduced by reducing the flowrate, shortening the collecting time, and switching the eluent to a different composition. The best recovery ratio of the dyes in the current design can be achieved by using the column with a powder size distribution of 46-63 µm and operating at the rotational speed of 1500 RPM. This platform can process a sample volume of 1 µL and the processing time is about 30 min. Since the only instrument used is a motor, the complete chromatographic process, from separation to fraction collection, can be carried out on a centrifugal platform at a low cost.

Recurrence Rate of Proximal Contact Loss Between Implant Restorations and Adjacent Teeth After Proximal Contact Repair: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: Proximal contact loss (PCL) between implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) and adjacent teeth has been reported as a common complication of implant therapy. The prevalence of PCL and its potential risk factors have been extensively studied. However, few studies have discussed the recurrent PCL after intervention to restore the proximal contacts. Thus, this retrospective study aimed to evaluate the recurrence rate of PCL and its potential risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 41 patients (with 45 implants in the posterior region), who had experienced PCL between implant restorations and adjacent teeth and had received contact repair. Recurrent PCL was recorded and evaluated during routine follow-ups with an interval of 6 to 12 months. The recurrence rates and time were measured. The potential influential factors of PCL were also assessed. Fisher exact test, t test, univariate logistic regression analyses, and multivariate logistic regression model were utilized to identify factors influencing PCL. RESULTS: The recurrence rates of mesial PCL were high (> 50%) and the recurrence time became progressively rapid after each repair (5, 3.2, and 2.2 years). Implants with the first PCL recurrence were more likely to be splinted than those implants without recurrence (54.5% vs 18.8%; P = .032). In addition, patients with the first recurrence were slightly older than those without recurrence (55.8 vs 50.1 years; P = .087). Age, implant restoration (splinted vs single), frequent use of interdental brushes, and time to first complaint were the candidate factors associated with recurrent PCL in the univariate logistic regression analysis. The multivariate logistic regression model revealed that only splinted implant restoration was independently associated with a higher risk of recurrence (odds ratio 4.99; 95% confidence interval 1.02-24.31; P = .047). CONCLUSION: The recurrence rates of mesial PCL were high and associated with the splinted-type design. Also, the recurrence time of PCL accelerated after each repair. Therefore, routine follow-up monitoring PCL and carefully assessing patient compliance after implant therapy are recommended.

Comparison of the residual cement on custom computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing titanium and zirconia abutments: A preliminary cohort study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical studies comparing the occurrence and quality of residual cement between custom zirconia and custom titanium abutments with subgingival margins are scarce. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the difference in the amount of residual cement between custom zirconia and titanium abutments with a 1-mm subgingival margin. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty participants were randomized to receive either a custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert or a custom titanium abutment with a 1-mm subgingival margin on a posterior bone-level implant. Monolithic lithium disilicate crowns with a screw-access hole were cemented to abutments randomly with either a resin-modified glass ionomer cement or a resin cement. After cementation, the crown-abutment assemblies were removed and photographed from the mesial, buccal, distal, and lingual of the specimen to record the residual cement. The length along the abutment margin of each aspect of the assembly was measured. The surface area of the residual cement (SA) and the surface area of the residual cement per unit length of margin (SA_P) were calculated. Results for the groups were compared with the Fisher exact test, the Friedman test, and the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05). RESULTS: The median (lower quartile, upper quartile) of SA and SA_P for the custom zirconia abutment with a bonded titanium insert was 1.9 (0.5, 3.9) mm2 and 0.086 (0.032, 0.02) mm2, respectively, and for the custom titanium abutment, the values were 2.9 (1.3, 5.1) mm2 and 0.138 (0.062, 0.239) mm2, respectively. No significant difference was found between the custom zirconia abutments with bonded titanium inserts and titanium abutments for SA (P=.075) and SA_P (P=.083) with the Mann-Whitney U test. No significant difference was found in residual cement between the 4 aspects of the abutment (SA: P=.852; SA_P: P=.954) with the Friedman test and between the 2 types of cement (SA: P=.447; SA_P: P=.878) with the Mann-Whitney U test. CONCLUSIONS: A similar amount of subgingival residual cement was recorded around the abutment-crown assembly, regardless of the abutment material or cement type used.

Retrospective comparison of posterior fixed dental prostheses supported by two different titanium abutments on tissue level implants.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Clinical studies comparing compatible computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) titanium abutments (CAs) and original prefabricated 1-piece titanium abutments (PAs) for posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) on Straumann Tissue Level (STL) implants are sparse. PURPOSE: The purpose of this retrospective clinical study was to compare the performance of posterior FDPs supported by CAs and PAs on STL implants after a mean observation period of 7.2 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who received STL implants and posterior FDPs by using CAs or PAs between January 2002 and December 2012 and returned for follow-up between January 2017 and September 2018 were included in this study. Technical and biological complications of FDPs were examined and recorded. Radiographs were used for the measurement of marginal bone loss (MBL) of each implant. Variables, complication rates, and MBL of the 2 groups were analyzed by using a generalized estimating equation and multivariable linear mixed model. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients with 195 implants in the CA group and 75 patients with 143 implants in the PA group were included. The mean functional time of FDPs was 6.5 ±1.1 years for the CA group and 8.1 ±2.6 years for the PA group. No implant failure was noted in either group. The technical complication rate was 20.8% in the CA group and 26.3% in the PA group. Abutment screw loosening (ASL) was noted in the CA group (8.5%). The decementation rate was significantly higher in the PA group (14.1%) than that in the CA group (3.1%) (adjusted odds ratio=4.40, confidence interval=1.41 to 13.69, P=.011). No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of the rates of ceramic chipping, peri-implantitis, peri-implant mucositis, or mean MBL. CONCLUSIONS: Using CAs or PAs to support posterior FDPs on STL implants has no significant effect on the incidence rate of biological complications. However, a higher ASL rate and a lower decementation rate were noted with CAs than with PAs.