Cemental tear is a special kind of root surface fracture, contributing to periodontal and periapical breakdown. However, it is a challenge for doctors to diagnose, resulting in delayed or improper treatment. We reviewed the predisposing factors, location, radiographic/clinical characteristics, diagnosis and treatments of cemental tears. From the literature, patients with cemental tear were mainly males, over 60 year-old. Possible predisposing factors include gender, age, tooth type, traumatic occlusal force and vital teeth. Cemental tears were common in upper and lower anterior teeth, single or multiple, and can be present in cervical, middle and apical third of roots. Morphology of cemental tears can be either piece-shaped or U-shaped. Clinically, cemental tear shows a unitary periodontal pocket and signs/symptoms mimicking localized periodontitis, apical periodontitis and vertical root fractures. Treatment of cemental tears include scaling, root planning, root canal treatment, periodontal/periapical surgery, guided tissue regeneration, bone grafting, and intentional replantation. Recurrence of cemental tear is possible especially when the fracture involves root apex. Extraction is recommended for teeth with poor prognosis. In conclusion, cemental tears can involve both periodontal and periapical area. Dentists should understand the predisposing factors and clinical features of cemental tears for early diagnosis/treatment to prevent bone loss/tooth extraction.

No abstract

The successful treatment rate with the MAD was 65.8%. The placement and posterior regulation of the intraoral appliance efficiently reduced the apnea-hypopnea index, improved the sleep quality and the clinical symptomatology associated. Obstructive sleep apnea syndrome is a highly prevalent disease. and dentists should be aware of the benefits enhanced by this prosthetic device, considered the first treatment option by certain physicians.

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective study was to analyze the radiographic peri-implant bone loss of bone level implants and tissue level implants with a convergent neck in screw-retained single crowns and in screw-retained fixed partial prostheses, after two years of functional loading. Materials and methods: The sample was divided into two groups according to their type: Group I: supracrestal implants with convergent transmucosal neck; Group II: crestal implants. In each group we distinguish two subgroups according to the type of prosthetic restoration: single crowns and a three-piece fixed partial prosthesis on two implants. To quantify bone loss, parallelized periapical radiographs were analyzed at the time of implant placement and after two years of functional load. Results: A total of 120 implants were placed in 53 patients. After statistical analysis it was observed that for each type of implant bone loss was 0.97 ± 0.91 mm for bone level and 0.31 ± 0.48 mm for tissue level. No significant differences were found regarding the type of prosthesis and the location (maxilla or mandible) of the implants. Conclusions: Tissue level implants with a convergent transepithelial neck exhibit less peri-implant bone loss than bone level implants regardless of the type of prosthesis.