Incorporation of the microencapsulated antimicrobial agent phytoncide into denture base resin.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to fabricate a denture base resin (DBR) containing phytoncide microcapsules (PTMCs) and determine the mechanical properties of the resin and antifungal activity. METHODS: Fifty-four heat-cured rectangular DBR specimens (64 × 10 × 3.3 ± 0.2 mm) containing nine concentrations of PTMC between 0 and 5% (wt/wt) were fabricated and subjected to a three-point bending test. A phytoncide release bioassay was developed using DBR containing 0% and 2.5% PTMCs (wt/wt) in a 24 well-plate assay with incubation of Porphyromonas gingivalis at 37 °C for 74 h. The antifungal activity of PTMCs against Candida albicans, in a pH 5.5 acidic environment was determined in a plate assay. RESULTS: Flexural strength decreased with increasing PTMC concentration from 97.58 ± 4.79 MPa for the DBR alone to 53.66 ± 2.46 MPa for DBR containing 5.0% PTMC. No release of phytoncide from the PTMCs in the DBR was detected at pH 7.4. The PTMCs had a minimal inhibitory concentration of 2.6% (wt/vol) against C. albicans at pH 5.5. CONCLUSIONS: PTMCs can be added to DBR 2.5% (wt/wt) without adversely affecting flexural strength. PTMCs released the antimicrobial agent at pH 5.5 at concentrations sufficient to inhibit the growth of the C. albicans.

Survival rates and complication types for single implants provided at the Melbourne Dental School.

BACKGROUND: Single implants and implant-supported single crowns (ISSCs) have become popular treatment modalities for single tooth replacement. Studies have identified high implant survival rates, but also many complications. The aim of this five-year retrospective study was to assess the survival rates, complication types and occurrences for single implants and ISSCs at the Melbourne Dental School (MDS) in Victoria, Australia. METHODS: A search of the Royal Dental Hospital of Melbourne (RDHM) database was conducted for data on all implant treatment and reported complications during the period between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2009. Complications were categorized into surgical, biological and restorative types. RESULTS: A total of 622 implant fixtures and 444 ISSCs were inserted into 406 patients. Seventeen implants failed during the mean follow-up time of 2.18 years, yielding a 2.7% failure rate and an estimated one- and five-year survival rate of 98.8% and 93.9%, respectively. The cumulative surgical, biological and restorative complication incidences were 11.9%, 17.6% and 14.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that single tooth replacement using implant therapy within a teaching environment had a high survival rate. However, complications frequently occurred. This article only provides a descriptive analysis. Correlation analysis between variables would provide greater insight into the causes of complications.

Strategies for restoration of single implants and use of cross-pin retained restorations by Australian prosthodontists.

BACKGROUND: Implant supported restorations (ISRs) for the single implant may be cement retained or screw retained. Limited scientific evidence exists to support the superiority of a retention type for either implant or prosthetic success. The aim of this study was to assess preferences of Australian prosthodontists when restoring single implants. In particular, clinical practices for cross-pin retained implant supported restorations for a single implant were investigated. METHODS: A written questionnaire comprised of seven questions, some of which had multiple parts and of both open- and closed-format, was sent to 124 Australian prosthodontists. The questionnaire asked recipients to identify: (1) their preference for retention choice when restoring a single implant; (2) the frequency of use; and (3) clinical practice when restoring a cross-pin retained restoration. RESULTS: Seventy-seven per cent of respondents indicated that direct to fixture (DTF) retention was their first preference. DTF retention was also the most frequently employed restoration for single implants. Respondents indicated that cross-pinned ISRs are employed to maintain retrievability or when DTF is not possible. The majority of respondents indicated they always or sometimes use a gasket with cross-pin retained restorations, though gasket type varied. Thirty-eight respondents (31%) indicated that they would never use a cross-pinned retained restoration for a single ISR. CONCLUSIONS: Australian prosthodontists prefer, and more frequently restore single implants, using DTF retention. Queensland prosthodontists prefer cement retained ISRs. In comparison, cross-pinned restorations tend to be the least favoured and least used retention type. In addition, variation in opinion exists regarding the need for a gasket and type of gasket to be placed.

The cross-pin retained implant supported restoration: a study of gasket placement and leakage.

BACKGROUND: Advantages of cross-pin retained implant supported restorations (ISRs) include predictable retrieval and predictable retention. Unlike direct to fixture (DTF) or cement retained restorations, the prosthetic design of a cross-pinned restoration retains gaps at the interfaces between the crown, abutment and cross-pin screw. These spaces permit leakage into the suprastructure and gasket placement has been recommended to prevent this leakage. METHODS: Five different gaskets were assessed for their ability to prevent leakage into a cross-pinned ISR. The gaskets tested were: cement admixture on the cross-pin screw; cement admixture on the inner surface of the coping and the cross-pin screw; cement admixture on the inner surface of the coping only; cement admixture placed 1 mm from the margin of the coping and a filler placed in the abutment chimney. results: Only gaskets which sealed both the cross-pin screw interface and the abutment-crown interface prevented leakage. A filler placed in the abutment chimney prevented leakage into this space but did not prevent fluid accumulating between the coping and abutment. Conservative placement of cement at the margin of the coping failed to prevent leakage. CONCLUSIONS: Cement gaskets may effectively prevent leakage into a cross-pinned ISR. However, the use of a cement as a gasket has to be weighed against the issue of predictable retrieval, cement extrusion and incomplete seating.

The effects of oscillating forces upon the flow of dental cements.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of oscillating forces upon the flow of five dental cements. A laboratory investigation was carried out using a crown and die. It showed that the application of oscillating forces improved the flow of the tested dental cements when combined with low static loads and wide crown-die separations. The oscillating forces enhanced the late, particle-dominated phase of cement flow. Further investigations characterised the nature of the oscillating forces applied in this experiment and revealed yield stress behaviour shown by one cement.