ObjectivesNanothechnology found to be increasingly implemented in implantology sphere over the recent years and it shows encouraging effect in this field. The aim of present review is to compare, based on the recent evidence, the influence of various nanostructure surface modifications of titanium for implants, on osteoblasts proliferation.Material and MethodsA literature review of English articles was conducted by using MEDLINE database restricted to 2009 - 2014 and constructed according PRISMA guidelines. Search terms included “Titanium implant”, “Titanium surface with nanostructure”, “Osteoblast”. Additional studies were identified in bibliographies. Only in vitro and/or in vivo studies on nano structured implant surfaces plus control sample, with specific evaluation method for osteoblasts proliferation and at least one Ti sample with nanostructure, were included in the review.Results32 studies with 122 groups of examined samples were selected for present review. Each study conducted in vitro experiment, two studies conducted additional in vivo experiments. All studies were dispensed by type of surface modification into two major groups; “Direct ablative titanium implant surface nano-modifications” with 19 studies and ”Nanocomposite additive implant surface modifications” with 13 studies. Overall 24 studies reporting on positive effect of nanostructured surface, 2 studies found no significant advantage and 6 studies reported on negative effect compared to other structure scales.ConclusionsFrom examination of selected articles we can notice marked advantage in implementation of various nanostructures onto implant surface. Yet for discovering the ultimate implant surface nanostructure, further comparable investigations of Ti surface nanostructures need to be done.
Restorations made of a combination of resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and composite resin (CR)--open sandwich fillings--have been recommended for use in proximal boxes of molar cavities. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical behaviour over time of RMGIC/CR sandwich restorations versus CR restorations in Class II molar cavities. During a period of 2 years, a total of 220 restorations were placed in 118 patients by one operator (VV). A random block allocation was used to allocate cavities to one of the two restorative techniques. Bitewing radiographs and photographs were taken at baseline and at annual recall appointments. At present, a total of 210 restorations have been evaluated after 1 year and 141 restorations after 2 years. All restorations were evaluated using a modification of USPHS criteria. A total of three RMGIC/CR and two CR restorations (2.8%) were rated as failures caused by endodontic complications or major fractures. Twenty-eight teeth were reported to have postoperative sensitivity at the baseline evaluation 1 week following placement. Nine RMGIC/CR (8.5%) and four CR (4.9%) restorations with minor fractures were rated Charlie but were still acceptable. Bitewing radiographs revealed progression of carious lesions in proximal surfaces of originally intact or restored teeth adjacent to five (5.9%). RMGIC/CR restorations and eight (10.9%) CR restorations. No statistically significant differences between the two types of restoration were observed with respect to marginal adaptation, discoloration and caries progression. However, a higher number of large CR filling exhibited postoperative sensitivity at baseline compared to moderate CR or extensive and moderate RMGIC/CR restorations.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.