Search

Zirconia is a metal used in dental implantology. Its biocompatibility was studied in vitro and in vivo, results of the studies being analyzed in reviews and meta analyses. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate biocompatibility of zirconia in animal studies in vivo expressed as results of histomorphometric tests. Databases were searched from 1980 until February 2016, with different combination of the following MeSH terms: zirconium, biocompatibility, dental implants, in vivo, animal studies. Letters to the editors, case reports, commentaries, review articles and articles published in other languages then English were excluded. The search of PubMed, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases yielded 690 titles. After abstract screening and duplicate discarding 50 articles were identified and finally, 40 were included in the review. Most of the studies compared zirconia with titanium, a well established material for dental implants. In majority of the studies zirconia showed a similar osseointegration with titanium. Surface implant treatments, like sandblasted and etched zirconia (ZrO2-SLA), alumina toughed zirconia (ATZ), and powder injection molding (PIM) were used to improve osseointegration of zirconia with good results. In the light of histomorphometric test, zirconia, no matter physical and structural forms tested, is a biocompatible material.

AIM: This study draws a comparison, through the transparentization method, focusing on the quality of the canal obturation made with thermoplasticized gutta-percha, between two different systems: GuttaMaster VDW (München, Germany), based on obturators made of a plastic core, covered in alpha gutta-percha, and a system of vertical warm condensation.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study focused on twenty teeth extracted for various reasons which underwent the endodontic treatment realized through a hybrid technique, using the rotary files system of NiTi MTWO (VDW, München, Germany), and the manual files k-file type (Kendo, VDW, München, Germany). The teeth were distributed into two groups of ten. The teeth in the first group underwent obturation using the CWC technique of vertical warm obturation, and the teeth in the second group underwent root obturation using the GuttaMaster system (VDW, München, Germany). The teeth were decalcified in nitric acid. Using the method of transparentization with methyl salicylate, there were emphasized aspects regarding the abilities of each method to seal three-dimensionally the endodontic space.RESULTS: The teeth which underwent vertical obturation presented many more holes in the obturation material, holes situated mainly in the medial and coronary third. However, these teeth presented the highest degree of insertion in the lateral canals, as compared to the other obturation technique employed. The homogeneity of the root obturation had not had any statistical significant differences between the two techniques. However, the technique of injecting thermoplasticized gutta-percha was superior to the other one regarding the tightness on the edge and the degree of penetration in the lateral canals.CONCLUSIONS: The knowledge of both the qualities and the limits of the obturation material chosen, as well as the correctness of performing the two techniques, determines a definite improvement of the quality of the canal treatment, which ends with a three-dimensional canal obturation.

AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC) compared with of resin composite (RC), and RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL).METHODS: The randomized clinical trial included 45 patients (25-65 year-old), with at least two similar sized NCCL on premolars. After sample size calculation, 220 restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: (G1) Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer); (G2) a resin composite and an adhesive layer (Versaflo); (G3) RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite (Vitremer and Versaflo). The restorations were clinically followed every 6 months for up to 24 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P< 0.05) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material.RESULTS: At the end of 24 months, 172 restorations were evaluated in 37 patients, with a recall rate of 82.22%. The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations. The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the tooth (upper or lower premolar). Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100%, 100%, 98,25% and 90,69% at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of clinical evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between RMGIC and RC or RMGIC laminated with RC for color match, but no other significant difference was observed among the three types of restorations.CONCLUSIONS: The survival rates were similar for the three types of restorations in NCCL. Different types of materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.