Background This study aimed to investigate the effects of systemic omeprazole treatment on the osseointegration of titanium implants. Material and methods After surgical insertion of titanium implants into the metaphyseal part of rats’ both right and left tibial bones, the animals were randomly divided into three equal groups: control (n = 8), omeprazole dosage-1 (n = 8) (OME-1), and omeprazole dosage-2 (n = 8) (OME-2) and totally 48 implants were surgically integrated. The rats in the control group received no treatment during the four-week postoperative experimental period. In the OME-1 and OME-2 groups, the rats received omeprazole in doses of 5 and 10 mg/kg, respectively, every 3 days for 4 weeks. After the experimental period, the rats were euthanized. One rat died in each group and the study was completed with seven rats in each group. Blood serum was collected for biochemical analysis, and the implants and surrounding bone tissue were used for biomechanical reverse-torque analysis. In the biomechanical analysis, implants that were not properly placed and were not osseointegrated were excluded from the evaluation. Results One-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s honestly significant difference test and Student’s t test were used for statistical analysis. The reverse-torque test (control (n = 9), OME-1 (N = 7), and OME-2 (n = 7)) analysis of biochemical parameters (alkaline phosphatase, calcium, phosphorus, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine amino transferase, urea, and creatinine) revealed no significant differences between the groups (control (n = 7), OME-1 (N = 7), and OME-2 (n = 7)) (P > 0.05). Conclusions Omeprazole had no biomechanical or biochemical effects on the osseointegration process of titanium implants.
This study aimed to investigate the effects of systemic propranolol on the osseointegration of titanium implants. After the surgical insertion of titanium implants into the metaphyseal part of the tibiae of rats, the rats were randomly divided into three equal groups: the control (n ¼ 8), propranolol dosage-1 (PRP-1) (n ¼ 8), and propranolol dosage-2 (PRP-2) (n ¼ 8) groups. In the control group, the rats received no further treatment during the 4-week experimental period after the surgery. After the surgical insertion of the implants, the rats in the PRP-1 and PRP-2 groups were given 5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg propranolol, respectively, every 3 days for the 4-week experimental period. After the experimental period, the rats were euthanized. Blood sera were collected for biochemical analysis, and the implants and surrounding bone tissues were used for the biomechanical reverse torque analysis. One-way ANOVA and Tukey's honest significant difference test were used for statistical analysis. The student t-test was used to analyze the data obtained from the tests and the controls. There were no significant differences in the reverse torque analysis results and the biochemical parameters (alkaline phosphatase, calcium, and phosphorus) of the groups (P > 0.05). Alkaline phosphatase was, however, found to be higher in test animals compared to the controls (P < 0.05). Also, propranolol did not biomechanically affect the osseointegration of titanium implants, while alkaline phosphatase activity was higher in the test animals.
Glass carbomer cement is a new dental material developed from the traditional glass ionomer cements. It has better mechanical and chemical features when compared to the conventional glass ionomer cements. The purpose of this in silico investigation was to examine the influence of glass carbomer and composite resin materials with class I cavity design on stresses happening in the inlay. Finite-element analysis and three-dimensional modelling were used to examine the stress in the glass carbomer and hybrid composite inlays resulting from a 300-N point load on occlusal surfaces. Two different inlay materials, glass carbomer cement and hybrid composite resin, were evaluated. The maximum von Misses stress values in the composite resin inlays were significantly lower than those in the glass carbomer inlays. The results from this study showed that the resistance of the glass carbomer against the forces was higher than that of the composite resin inlays. The stresses were concentrated mostly at similar regions. The obtained results suggest that glass carbomer may be recommended as a preferred filler restorative material in teeth with much structure loss.
The aim of this study was to compare the marginal and internal adaptation of three‐unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated from different metal‐free materials using CAD/CAM methods. A total of 100 three‐unit FDPs were produced from a cubic zirconia, a fiber‐reinforced resin composite, a polyetheretherketone (PEEK), a polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), and a polymer composite material by the CAD/CAM method (n = 20 per material). The zirconia group was considered the control/reference material. Marginal and internal gap values of the produced FDPs were measured using the silicone replica method at ×40 magnification under a stereomicroscope. The obtained data were analyzed using one‐way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD tests. The marginal and internal gap values for the cubic zirconia material were found to be statistically significantly lower than those seen for the PEEK, polymer composite, PEKK, and fiber‐reinforced resin composite materials. While the marginal and internal adaptation of the cubic zirconia material was found to be better than the others, it should be noted that the marginal and internal gap values for all other materials tested were found to be within the clinically acceptable range.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.