Genotoxicity induced by endodontic sealers: A systematic review.

Introduction: This systematic review aimed to help further elucidate the following question: are endodontics sealers able to induce DNA damage in vitro or in vivo? Methods: This study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement 2020 criteria. A total of 23 studies were carefully selected by the authors. Results: Regarding the general characteristics, most studies evaluated, on average, 3-5 types of sealers (resin epoxy, salicylate, salicylate + MTA, zinc oxide-eugenol, bioceramic products, calcium hydroxide), performing comparisons between them. Our results demonstrate that endodontic sealers may be a genotoxic agent since most studies demonstrated positive findings, with the resin-based ones being the most potentially genotoxic. Conclusion: The type of genotoxicity assay, material evaluated, and dilution concentration levels influenced the outcome. This study clarifies whether and to what extent endodontic sealers are capable of inducing DNA injury in oral tissues.

Evaluation of the Association of Early Implant Failure With Local, Environmental, and Systemic Factors: A Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the association of early implant failure (EIF) with demographic, local, environmental, and systemic factors. METHODS: Clinical charts of 594 individuals with 2,537 dental implants were assessed. EIF was characterized by implant loss before and up to the abutment connection. Logistic regression analysis was used to verify the association between EIF and local, environmental, and systemic factors at the individual and implant levels. The chosen level of significance was 5%. RESULTS: EIF occurred in 144 implants (5.68%) and in 97 individuals (16.3%). At the individual level, smoking habits (odds ratio [OR] = 2.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00 to 6.47; P = .05), absence of postoperative antibiotic therapy (OR = 2.73; CI = 1.22 to 6.13; P = .02), and bone augmentation (OR = 1.83; CI = 1.17 to 2.85; P = .01) were significantly associated with EIF. At the implant level, smoking habits (OR = 2.90; CI = 1.60 to 5.26, P < .001), absence of postoperative antibiotic therapy (OR = 2.77; CI = 1.36 to 5.63, P = .005), postoperative complications (OR = 28.35; CI = 6.79 to 118.45, P < .001), implant length ≤8.5 mm (OR = 1.79; CI = 1.07 to 2.99; P = .03), and diameter <3.75 mm (OR = 1.65; CI = 1.08 to 2.52, P = .02) were associated with EIF. Age, sex, alcohol abuse, diabetes, hypertension, and long-term medication use were not associated with EIF at both individual and implant levels (P ≥ .12). CONCLUSIONS: Smoking habits, absence of antibiotic therapy, bone augmentation, postoperative complications, implant diameter <3.75 mm, and implant length ≤8.5 mm were associated with EIF. Clinicians should be aware of these associations that should be controlled for when feasible. Future cohort studies are required to confirm the risk factors.

Incidence of periodontal diagnosis in private dental practice.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the rates of periodontal examination in private dental practices in Brazil. METHODS: 235 dentists, 117 female and 118 males (mean age 33.1 years), presenting different levels of experience (mean: 11.2 years) were audited. In each dental practice, a team of two trained auditors evaluated dental examination kits for the presence of a periodontal probe, and checked whether there was any specific diagram to record the periodontal status of the patient in the model of clinical charts. The dentists were then asked whether or not they performed periodontal probing and radiographic examination of periodontal structures in all their patients. The degree of association between variables was evaluated using Chi-square or correlation tests. RESULTS: The dentists, 117 female and 118 males, were from 22 to 62 years old (mean age, 33.1 years), and presented 0.5 to 40 years of experience (mean of 11.2 years). Of the 235 clinicians, 19.3% performed periodontal probing in all their patients, and 17.5% of them record the periodontal examination, 48.9% of the professionals occasionally performed periodontal probing while 31.8% did not perform periodontal probing at all. Specialists in prosthodontics, and dentists having more than two specialties, excluding periodontists, performed periodontal probing more frequently than other specialists.