Biomimetic has emerged as a multi-disciplinary science in several biomedical subjects in recent decades, including biomaterials and dentistry. In restorative dentistry, biomimetic approaches have been applied for a range of applications, such as restoring tooth defects using bioinspired peptides to achieve remineralization, bioactive and biomimetic biomaterials, and tissue engineering for regeneration. Advancements in the modern adhesive restorative materials, understanding of biomaterial–tissue interaction at the nano and microscale further enhanced the restorative materials’ properties (such as color, morphology, and strength) to mimic natural teeth. In addition, the tissue-engineering approaches resulted in regeneration of lost or damaged dental tissues mimicking their natural counterpart. The aim of the present article is to review various biomimetic approaches used to replace lost or damaged dental tissues using restorative biomaterials and tissue-engineering techniques. In addition, tooth structure, and various biomimetic properties of dental restorative materials and tissue-engineering scaffold materials, are discussed.

Dental implants are frequently used to support fixed or removable dental prostheses to replace missing teeth. The clinical success of titanium dental implants is owed to the exceptional biocompatibility and osseointegration with the bone. Therefore, the enhanced therapeutic effectiveness of dental implants had always been preferred. Several concepts for implant coating and local drug delivery had been developed during the last decades. A drug is generally released by diffusion-controlled, solvent-controlled, and chemical controlled methods. Although a range of surface modifications and coatings (antimicrobial, bioactive, therapeutic drugs) have been explored for dental implants, it is still a long way from designing sophisticated therapeutic implant surfaces to achieve the specific needs of dental patients. The present article reviews various interdisciplinary aspects of surface coatings on dental implants from the perspectives of biomaterials, coatings, drug release, and related therapeutic effects. Additionally, the various types of implant coatings, localized drug release from coatings, and how released agents influence the bone–implant surface interface characteristics are discussed. This paper also highlights several strategies for local drug delivery and their limitations in dental implant coatings as some of these concepts are yet to be applied in clinical settings due to the specific requirements of individual patients.

Objective:The current study aimed to assess the knowledge and practice of pontic design selection by the general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the light of contemporary guidelines.Materials and Methods:This cross-sectional study was conducted among the GDPs of Karachi. A questionnaire was designed to collect data from 100 GDPs. The questionnaire included general/demographic information (practitioner's education, experience, and place of practice) and an average number of fixed prosthesis constructed by the GDP. The questionnaire was further categorized to evaluate the knowledge/practice of pontic design selection and latest recommendations.Results:For the maxillary anterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (32%) followed by the modified ridge lap (28%). In the maxillary posterior segment, the ridge lap pontic was the most common (37%) followed by sanitary design (34%). For the mandibular anterior segment, the modified ridge lap (50%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (17%). In case of the mandibular posterior segment, the sanitary design (34%) was the most common followed by ridge lap pontic (30%).Conclusions:The pontic design selection for the fixed prosthesis is a neglected domain. The contemporary guidelines are not followed with full spirit by the GDPs leading to wide variations in the pontic design selection.

No abstract

No abstract