Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sterilization effectiveness against biofilms on retrieved healing abutments used in implant dentistry. Background A large number of clinicians reuse healing abutments to decrease treatment costs although it can promote infection due to the presence of remnant biofilm biomass. Methods One hundred and eighty‐five titanium healing abutments previously used for 3 months in oral cavity were assessed in this study. Abutments were submitted to cleaning, chemical disinfection, and autoclave sterilization according to clinical guidelines. The abutments were aseptically placed into glass tubes containing specific bacterial growth medium and then incubated for 10 days. From glass tubes with bacterial growth, 100 µl medium was transferred to Schaedler's agar for morphological identification and counting of strict anaerobes and to Columbia blood agar for presumptive identification of facultative anaerobes after incubation. Isolated strains were then identified at species level by enzymatic and biochemical tests within API microorganism detection platform. Also, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed for identification of undefined strains. Results After the standard cleaning and sterilization procedures, fifty‐six (approximately 30%) retrieved abutments showed the presence of remnant biofilm biomass. The bacteria identified into the remnant biofilms covering the abutments were representative of the commensal oral microbiota including Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, and Enterococcus faecalis. Conclusion Although some healing abutments did not reveal the existence of bacteria, organic components from biofilm biomass are still strongly adhered on the retentive micro‐regions and surfaces of abutments and therefore that would support the accumulation of biofilm including pathogenic species leading to patients’ cross‐infections. Further studies should be performed on the assessment of different materials, design, and connections of the healing abutments associated with clinical disinfection procedures in implant dentistry.

(1) Introduction: Denture adhesives (DAs) promote stability, chewing ability, and quality of life. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of original brand DAs and white brands in their retention of conventional complete dentures. (2) Methods: This study followed the recommendations of the international standard ISO 10873. Three original brands of DA (Corega® Fixação 3D, GlaxoSmithKline®, Stafford Miller Ltd., Dungarvan Co. Waterford, Ireland), KuKident® Pro Procter & Gamble Technical Centres®, Ltd., Whitehal Lane, Germany and Elgydium® Fix, Laboratórios URGO® SL, Florida, Spain) were compared to three white brands (Fixação Extra Forte Pingo Doce®, Laboratórios Cosmodent®, Cantabria, Spain), Fixador de Próteses (Continente®, Propack®,Gmbh, Ladenburg, Germany) and Creme Fixador de Próteses (Auchan®, Ellipse®, Roubaix, France). Their retention capacities were analyzed using a mechanical test device. (3) Results: The mean retentive ability of original brand adhesives (M = 11.16, SD = 5.27) was significantly higher (t(298) = 11.88; p < 0.001) than that of the white brands (M = 5.92, SD = 1.18). When comparing all brands, statistically significant differences were also observed, F(5.294) = 707.68 (p < 0.001). The generic adhesive results were more homogeneous. The generic brands from Continente® (M = 5.24, SD = 0.94) and Auchan® (M = 5.80, SD = 0.79) were not significantly different, while the Pingo Doce® brand obtained significantly higher mean retention results (M = 6.71, SD = 1.28). (4) Conclusions: The original brands of DA have a significantly higher retentive ability than the white brands. Elygidim® Fix had the worst result of the three original brands, and the product from Pingo Doce® had the best result among the three white brands.

Thermal and self-curing acrylic resins are frequently and versatilely used in dental medicine since they are biocompatible, have no flavor or odor, have satisfactory thermal qualities and polishing capacity, and are easy and fast. Thus, given their widespread use, their fracture resistance behavior is especially important. In this research work, we comparatively analyzed the fracture resistance capacity of thermo and self-curing acrylic resins in vitro. Materials and Methods: Five prosthesis bases were created for each of the following acrylic resins: Lucitone®, ProBase®, and Megacryl®, which were submitted to different forces through the use of the CS® Dental Testing Machine, usually mobilized in the context of fatigue tests. To this end, a point was defined in the center of the anterior edge of the aforementioned acrylic resin bases, for which the peak tended until a fracture occurred. Thermosetting resins were, on average, more resistant to fracture than self-curable resins, although the difference was not statistically significant. The thermosetting resins of the Lucitone® and Probase® brands demonstrated behavior that was more resistant to fracture than the self-curing homologues, although the difference was not statistically significant. Thermosetting resins tended to be, on average, more resistant to fracture and exhibited the maximum values for impact strength, compressive strength, tensile strength, hardness, and dimensional accuracy than self-curing resins, regardless of brand.

Micromovements of the implant–abutment connection influence peri-implant bone preservation. This study evaluates and quantifies the maximal torque after a cycle of implant prosthetic screws tightening using original components. A total of 40 samples were tested: Megagen®—Daegu, South Korea; Dentium®—Gangnam-Gu, Seoul, Korea; BIOMET 3i®—West Palm Beach, FL, USA and BTI®—Álava, Spain. Screws from each manufacturer were subjected to maximal stress force until they fractured. The fracture points were recorded and compared among all samples. To compare the mean values of fracture torques, the reference values associated with each brand and the sample results were used in t-tests. ANOVA (analysis of variance) was used to compare the maximal resistance limit between brands, complemented with Tukey’s multiple-comparison test. The maximal considered level of significance was 5%. The average fracture force for the brands was 40.07 Ncm for Megagen®, 53.39 Ncm for Dentium®, 39.74 Ncm for Biomet 3i®, and 68.84 Ncm for BTI®. BTI® screws showed the most resistance to fracture. According to the protocol that was applied, the implant–abutment connection demonstrated good resistance and a precise fit between these interfaces; therefore, in some cases, the presented values showed a lack of quality control and low fracture resistance.

Temporary restorations play a fundamental role in oral rehabilitation. They can be used on teeth or implants for a variable period of time during the period prior to rehabilitation with definitive restorations. Temporary or provisional restorations manufactured via CAD/CAM methods are becoming increasingly used in the intermediate phase of the treatment of complex cases. The main objective of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of three materials used in the creation of provisional crowns on implants: polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), composite resin, and polyether ether ketone (PEEK). Fracture resistance in PMMA (Zirkonzahn Temp Basic® , Gais, South Tyrol, Italy) ranged from 1216.0 N to 1461.2 N, with a mean of 1300.4 N (SD = 97.09). In the composite material (3M Lava Ultimate®, Minnesota, USA), fracture resistance varied between 1343.5 N and 1490.6 N, with a mean of 1425.9 N (SD = 49.03). Lastly, in PEEK (Tecno Med Mineral®, Zirkonzahn®, Gais, South Tyrol, Italy), fracture resistance ranged from 2294.8 N to 2451.7 N, with a mean of 2359.5 (SD = 50.01). The crowns made with the PEEK Tecno Med Mineral® (Zirkonzahn®, Tyrol, Italy) material presented the best fracture resistance, followed by the crowns made with the Lava Ultimate® (3M® ESPE, Minnesota, USA) composite resin material and, finally, those made with the PMMA Temp Basic® (Zirkonzahn®, Tyrol, Italy) material.

No abstract

(1) Introduction: Implant-supported fixed complete dentures are mostly composed of cantilevers. The purpose of this work was to evaluate the fracture resistance of zirconia (Prettau®, second generation, or Ice Zirkon Translucent, first generation) with cantilever lengths of 6 and 10 mm, and zirconia’s fracture resistance in relation to an average bite force of 250 N. (2) Materials and methods: Forty structures were created in CAD/CAM and divided into four groups: group A (6 mm cantilever in IZT), group B (10 mm cantilever in IZT), group C (6 mm cantilever in Pz), and group D (10 mm cantilever in pz). The study consisted of a traditional “load-to-failure” test. (3) Results: A statistically significant result was found for the effect of cantilever length, t(38) = 16.23 (p < 0.001), with this having a large effect size, d = 4.68. The 6 mm cantilever length (M = 442.30, sd = 47.49) was associated with a higher mean force at break than the 10 mm length (M = 215.18, sd = 40.74). No significant effect was found for the type of zirconia: t(38) = 0.31 (p = 0.757), and d = 0.10. (4) Conclusions: All the components with cantilever lengths of 6 mm broke under forces higher than 250 N. Cantilevers larger than 10 mm should be avoided.

Micromovements of the implant-abutment connection influence peri-implant bone preservation. The maximal torque after a cycle of implant prosthetic screw tightening using original components of different manufacturers and replicas produced by other companies is evaluated and quantified in this study. A total of 30 Mis Seven® standard platform implants and 30 interfaces were used, and 30 standard platform screws were tested, 10 Mis®, 10 Iconekt®, and 10 Exaktus®. The screws were tightened with an MIS® torquemeter until their respective fracture, and the fracture point was measured through the equipment’s load cell, CS-Dental Testing Machine®. The screws were analyzed under an Olympus® SZ61 microscope. The fracture points were recorded and compared among all samples. To compare the mean values of the fracture torques, t-tests were performed using the reference values associated with each brand and the sample results. The variable “Place of Fracture” between the original Mis® brand and the Exaktus® replica compared to the Iconekt® replica presented a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). When analyzing the variable “Fracture Torque,” although it was verified that the replica screws (Iconekt® and Exaktus®) had a lower maximum torque, 65.11 Nm and 62.89 Nm, respectively, compared to the original Mis® brand (70 Nm and 69 Nm), there were no statistically significant differences p > 0.05. Nonoriginal screws did not present different fracture resistances compared to the original Mis® brand screws. The fracture site of Iconekt® screws showed a different pattern compared to the other brands.