APCs should be used in postextraction sites to improve clinical and radiographic outcomes such as bone density and soft tissue healing and postoperative symptoms. The actual benefit of APCs on decreasing pain in extraction sockets is still not quantifiable.
BackgroundMany procedures currently require the use of bone grafts to replace or recover bone volume that has been resorbed. However, the patient’s opinion and preferences must be taken into account before implementing any treatment. Researchers have focused primarily on assessing the effectiveness of bone grafts rather than on patients' perceptions. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore patients' opinions regarding the different types of bone grafts used in dental treatments.MethodsOne hundred patients were randomly chosen participated in the study. A standardized survey of 10 questions was used to investigate their opinions regarding the different types of bone grafts used in dental treatments. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the different variables, and absolute frequencies and percentages were used as summary measures. A value of p <0.05 was selected as the threshold for statistical significance.ResultsThe highest rate of refusal was observed for allografts and xenografts. The grafts with the lowest rates of refusal were autologous grafts (3 %) and alloplastics (2 %). No significant differences were found between the various types of bone grafts in the sociodemographic variables or the refusal/acceptance variable. Similarly, no significant relations were observed between a specific religious affiliation and the acceptance/refusal rates of the various types of graft.ConclusionsAllografts and xenografts elicited the highest refusal rates among the surveyed patients, and autologous bone and alloplastics were the most accepted bone grafts. Moreover, no differences were found in the sociodemographic variables or religious affiliations in terms of the acceptance/refusal rates of the different bone grafts.
Aim
To investigate the stress distribution in an immature maxillary incisor and the same tooth after simulated revitalization with deposition of tubular dentine or cementum by finite element analysis (FEA).
Methodology
A finite element model of a maxillary central incisor was developed on the basis of a µCT scan. The tooth was segmented in two parts: a part that represented a tooth in an immature state and an apical part that represented the tissue formed after revitalization. The apical part was given the mechanical properties of dentine or cementum. The immature tooth and the same tooth reinforced by either dentine or cementum underwent simulation of biting, trauma and orthodontic movement. Von Mises stress values were compared between the scenarios and tooth segments.
Results
Maximum stress in the immature incisor developed apically; however, dentine‐ and cementum‐reinforced teeth revealed the greatest stress in the external portion of the root decreasing towards the apex. Greatest mechanical stress was caused by dental trauma perpendicular to the long axis of the root followed by biting and orthodontic movement. Stress peaks were lower in the dentine‐reinforced tooth compared with the cementum‐reinforced tooth in all scenarios; however, median stress in the immature part was reduced irrespective of dentine or cementum deposition. Dentine reinforcement caused greater stress values in the apical segment due to absorbance of the applied force, whereas stress was not transferred towards deposited cementum.
Conclusions
Apposition of simulated hard tissue in a maxillary central incisor after revitalization reduced mechanical stress in the immature tooth. Formation of dentine was advantageous because, unlike cementum, it facilitated an even stress distribution throughout the root resulting in lower stress values.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.