Background Dentists are at high risk of exposure to occupational Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since vaccination is crucial to control COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to assess COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and its determinants among Lebanese practicing dentists. Methods A cross-sectional online study was conducted between February 15 and 22, 2021, among dentists practicing in Lebanon. Prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was estimated. A multivariable modified Poisson regression model was used to explore determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Results In total, 86% of participants were willing to receive or have already received a COVID-19 vaccine. Having received the influenza vaccine during the COVID-19 pandemic was linked to a 12% increase in the COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rate. In addition, participants having moderate and high COVID-19 vaccination knowledge levels were more likely to accept receiving the vaccine, and participants whose fear of COVID-19 level was high were more likely to accept receiving the vaccine compared to those having a low fear level. Contrarily, those who visit the medical doctor only when needed and once a year were less likely to accept COVID-19 vaccine compared to participants who routinely visit the medical doctor. Conclusions Our study showed a high level of acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination among Lebanese practicing dentists. And since knowledge about COVID-19 vaccination was associated with the vaccine acceptance, it should be improved and updated to further increase the acceptance rate. High acceptability of COVID-19 vaccination among dentists is expected to have a positive impact among the population in terms of increasing awareness and vaccine uptake.

Bone substitutes used in oral surgery include allografts, xenografts, and synthetic materials that are frequently used to compensate bone loss or to reinforce repaired bone, but little is currently known about their physicochemical characteristics. The aim of this study was to evaluate a number of physical and chemical properties in a variety of granulated mineral-based biomaterials used in dentistry and to compare them with those of autogenous bone. Autogenous bone and eight commercial biomaterials of human, bovine, and synthetic origins were studied by high-resolution X-ray diffraction, atomic absorption spectrometry, and laser diffraction to determine their chemical composition, calcium release concentration, crystallinity, and granulation size. The highest calcium release concentration was 24. 94 mg/g for Puros and the lowest one was 2.83 mg/g for Ingenios β-TCP compared to 20.15 mg/g for natural bone. The range of particles sizes, in terms of median size D50, varied between 1.32 μm for BioOss and 902.41 μm for OsteoSponge, compared to 282.1 μm for natural bone. All samples displayed a similar hexagonal shape as bone, except Ingenios β-TCP, Macrobone, and OsteoSponge, which showed rhomboid and triclinic shapes, respectively. Commercial bone substitutes significantly differ in terms of calcium concentration, particle size, and crystallinity, which may affect their in vivo performance.

hMSSM contains potentially multipotent postnatal stem cells providing a promising clinical application in preimplant and implant therapy.

Purpose: The aim of present investigation was to evaluate marginal bone level after 5-year follow-up of implants placed in healed ridges and fresh extraction sockets in maxilla with immediate loading protocol.Materials and Methods: Thirty-six patients in need of a single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla received 42 Astra Tech implants (Astra Tech Implant system™, Dentsply Implants, Mölndal, Sweden). Implants were placed either in healed ridges (group I) or immediately into fresh extraction sockets (group II). Implants were restored and placed into functional loading immediately by using a prefabricated abutment. Marginal bone level relative to the implant reference point was recorded at implant placement, crown cementation, 12, 36, and 60 months following loading using intra-oral radiographs. Measurements were made on the mesial and distal sides of each implant.Results: Overall, two implants were lost from the group II, before final crown cementation: they were excluded from the study. The mean change in marginal bone loss (MBL) after implant placement was 0.26 ± 0.161 mm for 1 year, and 0.26 ± 0.171 mm for 3 years, and 0.21 ± 0.185 mm for 5 years in extraction sockets and was 0.26 ± 0.176 mm for 1 year and 0.21 ± 0.175 mm for 3 years, and 0.19 ± 0.172 mm for 5 years in healed ridges group. Significant reduction of marginal bone was more pronounced in implants inserted in healed ridges (P < 0.041) compared to fresh surgical extraction sockets (P < 0.540). Significant MBL was observed on the mesial side of the implant after cementation of the provisional (P < 0.007) and after 12 months (P < 0.034) compared to the distal side which remained stable for 3 and 5 years observation period.Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, responses of local bone to immediately loaded implants placed either in extraction sockets or healed ridges were similar. Functional loading technique by using prefabricated abutment placed during the surgery time seems to maintain marginal bone around implant in both healed and fresh extraction sites.

Bone augmentation techniques have increasingly been indicated for re-creating adequate bone height and volume suitable for dental implant sites. This is particularly applicable in the severely atrophic posterior maxilla where sinus perforation (ruptured Schneiderian membrane) is a very common complication and sinus floor elevation or lift is frequently considered a standard procedure. The augmentation of the maxillary sinus can be performed with or without grafting biomaterials. Herein, numerous biomaterials and bone substitutes have been proposed, primarily to sustain the lifted space. In addition, cytokines and growth factors have been used to stimulate angiogenesis, enhance bone formation as well as improve healing and recovery period, either as the sole filling material or in combination with bone substitute materials. Within such, is the family of autologous blood extracts, so-called platelet concentrates, which are simply the “product” resulting from the simple centrifugation of collected whole blood samples of the patient, immediately pre-surgery. Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF), a sub-family of platelet concentrates, is a three-dimensional (3-D) autogenous biomaterial obtained, without including anti-coagulants, bovine thrombin, additives, or any gelifying agents during the centrifugation process. Today, it is safe to say that, in implant dentistry and oral and maxillofacial surgery, PRFs (particularly, the pure platelet-rich fibrin or P-PRF and leukocyte and platelet-rich fibrin or L-PRF sub-classes) are receiving the most attention, essentially due to their simplicity, rapidness, user-friendliness/malleability, and cost-effectiveness. Whether used as the sole “bioactive” filling/additive material or combined with bone substitutes, the revolutionary second-generation PRFs have been very often associated with promising clinical results. Hence, this review aims to provide a 10-years update on the clinical effectiveness of L-PRF when applied/used as the “sole” biomaterial in maxillary sinus augmentation procedures. An electronic search using specific keywords for L-PRF and maxillary sinus augmentation was conducted in three main databases (PubMed-MEDLINE database, Google Scholar and Cochrane library) for the period between January 2009–February 2020. The quest yielded a total of 468 articles. Based on the pre-established strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, only seven articles were deemed eligible and included in the analysis. Surprisingly, of the 5 studies which used de-proteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) in combination with L-PRF, 60% acclaimed no significant effects and only 40% declared positive effects. Of the two articles which had used allogenous bone graft, 50% declared no significant effects and 50% acclaimed positive effects. Only one study had used L-PRF as the sole grafting material and reported a positive effect. Likewise, positive effects were reported in one other study using L-PRF in combination with a collagen membrane. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, this review is limited by the inability to perform a proper systematic meta-analysis. Overall, most of the published studies reported impressive results of L-PRF application as a grafting material (sole or adjuvant) in maxillary sinus augmentation and dental implant restorative procedures. Yet, distinct technical processing for L-PRF preparation was noted. Hence, studies should be approached with caution. Here in, in sinus lift and treatment of Schneider membrane, the formation of mature bone remains inconclusive. More studies are eagerly awaited in order to prove the beneficial or detrimental effects of PRFs, in general and L-PRFs, in specific; especially in their tissue regenerative potential pertaining to the promotion of angiogenesis, enhancing of cell proliferation, stimulation of cell migration and autocrine/paracrine secretion of growth factors, as well as to reach a consensus or a conclusive and distinct determination of the effect of leukocytes (and their inclusion) on inflammation or edema and pain; a call for standardization in PRFs and L-PRFs composition reporting and regimenting the preparation protocols.