Objective To review the historical and current periodontal phenotype classifications evaluating methods and characteristics. Moreover, to identify and classify the methods based on periodontal phenotype components. Overview Several gingival morphology studies have been frequently associated with different terms used causing confusion among the readers. In 2017, the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐Implant Diseases and Conditions recommended to adopt the term “periodontal phenotype”. This term comprises two terms, gingival phenotype (gingival thickness and keratinized tissue width) and bone morphotype (buccal bone plate thickness). Furthermore, gingival morphology has been categorized on “thin‐scalloped”, “thick‐scalloped” and “thick‐flat” considering the periodontal biotype. However, by definition, the term phenotype is preferred over biotype. Periodontal phenotype can be evaluated through clinical or radiographic assessments and may be divided into invasive/non‐invasive (for gingival thickness), static/functional (for keratinized tissue width), and bi/tridimensional (for buccal bone plate thickness) methods. Conclusions “Thin‐scalloped,” “thick‐scalloped,” and “thick‐flat” periodontal biotypes were identified. These three periodontal biotypes have been considered in the World Workshop but the term periodontal phenotype is recommended. Periodontal phenotype is the combination of the gingival phenotype and the bone morphotype. There are specific methods for periodontal phenotype evaluation. Clinical significance The term periodontal phenotype is currently recommended for future investigations about gingival phenotype and bone morphotype. “Thin‐scalloped,” “thick‐scalloped,” and “thick‐flat” periodontal phenotypes can be evaluated through specific methods for gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and buccal bone plate thickness evaluation.

No abstract

<p> </p><p><span> </span>A disinfectant must meet two fundamental requirements: be an effective antimicrobial agent and preserve the dimensional stability and surface details of the impression. This allows to obtain much more accurate plaster models that allow the fabrication of prostheses. The most recommended procedures are immersion and spraying, using disinfectant solutions such as sodium hypochlorite, glutaraldehyde, iodophors and phenols at different concentrations. The available impression materials were not originally formulated to disinfect, so there is the potential for disinfection procedures to alter the physical features of the impressions and consequently the characteristics of the plater model. That is why the aim of this updated review is to know the effect of disinfectants on the dimensional stability of different impression materials after being subjected to different disinfection methods.</p>

Aim. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the MD (marginal discrepancy) on the calcinable copings in abutments for cemented prostheses with three luting agents. Methods. Sixty-four analogs of CeraOne-type abutments (NACONIH code, Titanium Fix Implant Sytem SP, Brazil) were divided into four groups (n = 16). The copings were cast and placed on the CeraOne abutment analogs and cemented with eugenol-free zinc oxide (EfZO) (n = 16), with glass ionomer (GI) (n = 16), and with zinc phosphate (ZP) (n = 16), and as a control group, there were CeraOne plastic copings (NACOC code, Titanium Fix Implant Sytem SP, Brazil) (n = 16) which were not cemented with any material. After 24 hours, the MD of the four groups was measured. MD was evaluated using a stereoscopic microscope (Leica EZ4 W, Leica Microsystems, Germany) with an increase of ×100. MD was measured at four predetermined and equidistant sites with respect to the marginal line of the cast adaptation. The measurement was made from the distance between the free edge of the cast cylinder and the margin of preparation of the titanium abutment, with a level of statistical significance of p<0.05. Results. Of the three fixing agents, the ZP was found to have the highest MD (53.59 ± 14.21 μm); however, the lowest MD (41.72 ± 9.10 μm) was found in the GI group. These differences are statistically significant at p<0.001. Conclusions. In summary, according to our results, it was found that ZP cement showed the highest MD after cementation, followed by the glass ionomer, while EfZO showed the lowest MD.