Search

Abstract Background Surface remineralization is recommended for the management of active non-cavitated interproximal carious lesions in primary teeth. According to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, a recently recognized category of materials called bioactive restorative materials can be used for remineralization. This study aimed to evaluate the release of fluoride (F), calcium (Ca) and phosphate (P) ions from Predicta® Bioactive Bulk-fill composite compared with EQUIA Forte® and Filtek™ Z350 and to determine the remineralization effect of these 3 restorative materials on adjacent initial interproximal enamel carious lesions. Methods The release of F, Ca and P ions from 3 groups ((n = 10/group) (Group 1- Predicta®, Group 2- EQUIA Forte® and Group 3- Filtek™ Z350)) was determined at 1st, 4th, 7th and 14th days. After creating artificial carious lesions, human enamel samples were randomly assigned into 3 groups (n = 13/group) which were placed in contact with occluso-proximal restorative materials and exposed to a 14-day pH cycling period. Surface microhardness was determined using a Knoop microhardness assay at baseline, after artificial carious lesions formation and after pH cycling. The difference in the percentage of surface microhardness recovery (%SMHR) among groups was compared. Mineral deposition was analyzed with energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) and the enamel surface morphology was evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Kruskal-Wallis’s test with Dunn’s post hoc test and one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test were used for data analysis. Results EQUIA Forte® released the highest cumulative amount of F and P ions, followed by Predicta® and Filtek™ Z350. Predicta® released higher amount of Ca ions than EQUIA Forte® and Filtek™ Z350. Predicta® demonstrated the highest %SMHR, followed by EQUIA Forte® and Filtek™ Z350. There was a significant difference in the %SMHR between Predicta® and Filtek™ Z350 (p

While the World Health Organization (WHO) has de-escalated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) from a global health emergency, ongoing discussions persist as new viral variants. This article aimed to consolidate German recommendations and international research to offer health care providers (HCPs) a comprehensive guide on COVID-19 boosters in 2024. The review outlines key recommendations from the German Robert Koch Institute. HCPs should receive COVID-19 boosters at least 12 months after their last vaccination or COVID-19 infection, contingent on the prevalent viral variant(s) in the region. However, excessive doses and/or frequent boosters, especially with mRNA vaccines, may lead to immune imprinting, T-cell exhaustion, and immunoglobulin (Ig) switching. Notably, this review highlights the significance of Ig, particularly IgA and IgG subclasses, in influencing infection risk and disease progression. Furthermore, it explores the implications of mRNA vaccine technology and potential adverse effects related to excessive dosing. In conclusion, this article provides a comprehensive analysis of COVID-19 vaccine boosters for HCPs, synthesising current recommendations, scientific debates, and considerations for optimising protection against SARS-CoV-2 in the evolving landscape of the post-pandemic era.

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the survival rates of pulpectomized primary teeth treated under general anesthesia (GA) or local anesthesia (LA), and to determine which factors affected tooth survival following pulpectomy. Materials and methods This retrospective study collected data from dental records. Patients under 5 years of age received dental treatment under GA or LA during 2007–2016, with at least one anterior or posterior tooth receiving a pulpectomy, were recruited. Pulpectomy was considered a failure if the tooth required extraction or retreatment due to pulp treatment failure. Survival analysis was used to assess the outcome. The cumulative survival probability was analyzed with the Kaplan–Meier estimator. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the associations between tooth survival and possible prognosis factors; sex, age, dental arch (upper/lower), tooth type (anterior/posterior), molar type (first/second molar), molar location (upper/lower molar), root filling material type, restoration type, preoperative radiographic findings and presence of pathologic root resorption. Results Two hundred and twenty‐seven primary teeth were included. At the 5‐year follow‐up, the survival rates of the pulpectomized teeth treated under GA and LA were 81.4% and 87.4%, respectively, which were not significantly different (p ≥ 0.05). A radiolucency on the preoperative radiograph was the only factor associated with tooth extraction or retreatment following pulpectomy, with a hazard ratio of 3.88 (95% CI = 1.29–11.65). Conclusions Pulpectomized primary teeth treated under GA and LA demonstrated high survival rates. Preoperative radiolucency is a possible associated factor that decreases tooth survival following pulpectomy. Why this paper is important Pulpectomy treatment under GA and LA provided high 5‐year cumulative survival rates, which were not significantly different. Pulpectomy treatment in teeth with a preoperative radiolucency were 3.9‐fold as likely to fail as teeth without pathology. Based on our findings, practitioners could apply these findings and discuss with caregivers about the treatment options, outcomes, and prognosis of pulpectomized teeth.

The aim of this study was to describe the changes in oral health policies and guidelines in response to the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in different countries and regions around the world. Information on oral health policies and guidelines from 9 countries (Canada, China including Hong Kong, Egypt, India, Japan, New Zealand, Nigeria, Switzerland, and Thailand) were summarized, and sources of the information were mostly the national or regional health authorities and/or dental council/associations. The changes made to the oral health guidelines depended on the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic. This included suspension of non-emergency dental care services at the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak, and easing the restrictions on non-essential and elective dental care when the pandemic became under control. The COVID-19 risk mitigation strategies include strict adherence to infection control practices (use of hand sanitizers, facemask and maintaining social distancing), reducing the amount of aerosol production in the dental setting, and managing the quality of air in the dental treatment rooms by reducing the use of air conditioners and improving air exchange. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown a major impact on dental practice. Dental professionals are trying to adapt to the new norms, while the medium to long-term impact of COVID-19 on dentistry needs further investigation.