No abstract

No abstract

The current literature provides insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of different implant abutment designs and materials in the stability of peri-implant tissues.

To ensure the long-term success of dental implants, a functional attachment of the soft tissue to the surface of the implant abutment is decisively important in order to prevent the penetration of bacteria into the implant-bone interface, which can trigger peri-implant disease. Here a surface modification approach is described that includes the covalent immobilization of the extracellular matrix (ECM) proteins fibronectin and laminin via a crosslinker to silanized Ti6Al4V and Y-TZP surfaces. The surface properties are evaluated using static contact angle, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and atomic force microscopy (AFM). The interaction of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) with the immobilized ECM proteins is verified by analyzing the localization of focal contacts, cell area, cell morphology, proliferation rate, and integrin expression. It is observed in the presence of fibronectin and laminin an increased cellular attachment, proliferation, and integrin expression of HGFs accompanied by a significantly higher number of focal adhesions. The presented approach holds great potential to enable a stronger bond between soft tissue and implant abutment surface. This could potentially help to prevent the penetration of bacteria in an in vivo application and thus reduce the risk of periimplant disease.

Objectives: To investigate the influence of different temperatures on the compressive strength of glass ionomer cement (GIC) modified by the addition of silica-coated wax capsules; Material and Methods: Commercially-available GIC was modified by adding 10% silica-coated wax capsules. Test blocks were fabricated from pure cement (control) and modified cement (test), and stored in distilled water (37 °C/23 h). The compressive strength was determined using a universal testing machine under different temperatures (37 °C, 50 °C, and 60 °C). The maximum load to failure was recorded for each group. Fractured surfaces of selected test blocks were observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM); Results: For the control group, the average compressive strength was 96.8 ± 11.8, 94.3 ± 5.7 and 72.5 ± 5.7 MPa for the temperatures 37 °C, 50 °C and 60 °C respectively. The test group reported compressive strength of 64.8 ± 5.4, 47.1 ± 5.4 and 33.4 ± 3.6 MPa at 37 °C, 50 °C and 60 °C, respectively. This represented a decrease of 28% in compressive strength with the increase in temperature from 37 °C to 50 °C and 45% from the 37 °C to the 60 °C group; Conclusion: GIC modified with 10% silica-coated wax capsules and temperature application show a distinct effect on the compressive strength of GIC. Considerable compressive strength reduction was detected if the temperature was above the melting temperature of the wax core.

Objectives To summarize the existing evidence on patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) of implant‐supported restorations fabricated using a digital workflow in comparison to conventional manufacturing procedures. Methods A PICO strategy was executed using an electronic and manual search focusing on clinical studies evaluating PROMs of implant‐supported restorations. Only clinical trials assessing conventional versus digital workflows for implant‐supported restorations were included. PROMS on implant impression procedures and fabrication of final restorations were evaluated using random and fixed effects meta‐analyses, while implant planning/placement was reported descriptively. Results Among 1062 titles identified, 14 studies were finally included, and only seven studies were eligible for meta‐analysis. For implant planning and placement, only a qualitative analysis was possible due to heterogeneity between the studies. For impression procedures, the random effects model revealed statistically significant differences in taste, anxiety, nausea, pain, shortness of breath, and discomfort in favor of optical impressions. No significant difference in the subjective perception of the duration of an impression could be reported. For the final fabrication of restorations, no significant difference between veneered and monolithic posterior restorations was found in terms of esthetic, function, and general satisfaction. Conclusion Most of the studies reporting about PROMs were published during the last ten years and limited to implant‐supported single crowns in the posterior region. Based on PROMs, no scientifically proven recommendation for guided implant placement could be given at this time. Patients showed high preference for optical impressions, whereas no differences between veneered and monolithic restorations could be reported.

Objectives To compare the removal of simulated biofilm at two different implant‐supported restoration designs with various interproximal oral hygiene aids. Methods Mandibular models with a missing first molar were fabricated and provided with single implant analogues (centrally or distally placed) and two different crown designs (conventional [CCD] and alternative crown design [ACD]). Occlusion spray was applied to the crowns to simulate artificial biofilm. Thirty participants (dentists, dental hygienists, and laypersons) were equally divided and asked to clean the interproximal areas with five different cleaning devices to further evaluate if there were differences in their cleaning ability. The outcome was measured via standardized photos and the cleaning ratio, representing the cleaned surfaces in relation to the respective crown surface. Statistical analysis was performed by linear mixed‐effects model with fixed effects for cleaning tools, surfaces, crown design and type of participant, and random effects for crowns. Results The mean cleaning ratio for the investigated tools and crown designs were (in%): Super floss: 76 ± 13/ACD and 57 ± 14/CCD (highest cleaning efficiency), followed by dental floss: 66 ± 13/ACD and 56 ± 15/CCD, interdental brush: 55 ± 10/ACD and 45 ± 9/CCD, electric interspace brush: 31 ± 10/ACD and 30 ± 1/CCD, microdroplet floss: 8 ± 9/ACD and 9 ± 8/CCD. There was evidence of an overall effect of each factor “cleaning tool,” “surface,” “crown design,” and “participant” (p < 0.0001). Conclusions ACD allowed more removal of the artificial biofilm than CCD with Super floss, dental floss, and interdental brush. Flossing and interproximal brushing were the most effective cleaning methods. A complete removal of the artificial biofilm could not be achieved in any group.

No abstract