Search

Because new zirconia materials are constantly being developed, the aim was to identify and qualitatively synthesize research on how processing and time-related factors affect the properties of high translucent (HT) zirconia intended for monolithic restorations. Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and reference lists were searched for in vitro and clinical studies. Eligibility and risk of bias were assessed. A synthesis of 142 publications was performed. HT 3Y-TZP was the most common, followed by 5YSZ, 4YSZ, and multilayer. In the laboratory, HT 3Y-TZP should be sintered according to the manufacturer's recommendation and polished before glazing to favour strength, roughness, and wear behaviour. In the clinic, polishing is necessary after grinding to favour roughness and aging resistance. Over time, when using hydrothermal aging, t–m phase transformation and reduced translucency are expected, without affecting the strength and roughness. The strength of 4YSZ and 5YSZ is unaffected. However, the time-related methods are of questionable clinical significance. The evidence of all other factors' effects on the properties of HT zirconia is lacking or limited; thus, these factors are of relevance for future research. There is a high heterogeneity of study designs and methods, and the results are brand-dependent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several viewpoints have been reported regarding the effect of temporary cements, different surface pretreatment protocols before adhesive cementation, and predictive factors. This in vitro study tested if temporary cement, pretreatment of the tooth surface, the size of enamel or dentine influence adhesive cementation to zirconia ceramics. Twenty premolars were prepared for determination of enamel and dentin area, bond strength test and failure analysis. The samples were divided into two groups: untreated prior adhesive cementation (n = 10) and with temporary cementation done, pretreated prior adhesive cementation (n = 10). Zirconia overlays (Katana Zirconia STML) were cemented on the grounded flat teeth surfaces using Panavia V5. An additional six premolars underwent dentine tubule analysis with SEM to detect temporary cement residues after temporary cementation on an untreated tooth surface (n = 3) and on a pretreated surface (n = 3). The independent sample t-test was used to compare the two groups and the means of the total tooth, dentin or enamel areas did not differ significantly between the untreated and pretreated specimens. The mean tensile bond strength was significantly (p = 0.005) higher in the pretreated specimens (337N) than in the untreated ones (204N). The overall multivariable linear regression model with three predictors (surface pre-treatment, enamel area and dentine area) was significant (p = 0.003), among which the size of enamel was the strongest predictor (β = 0.506; p = 0.049), followed by the pretreatment effect (β = 0.478; p = 0.001) and the size of dentin area (β = −0.105; p = 0.022). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective was to compare marginal defects and evaluate discoloration for adhesively cemented veneers in vitro when using two cement removal techniques. Twenty premolars were prepared with chamfer and borders in enamel. IPS e.max CAD veneers were cemented using Panavia V5 and divided in two groups (n = 10): cement excess removed with a probe after tack-curing for 3–5 s, or cement excess removed with a brush, then completely polymerized. All teeth were stored in alginate gel until micro-CT examination. Scanning was performed twice: directly after cementation and after thermocycling (5000 cycles, between 5 and 55 °C). To analyze discoloration, teeth were colored using 0.5% basic fuchsine and examined under a stereomicroscope. Depth of dye infiltration was scored 0 (no discoloration) to 5 (discoloration along the entire margin). Statistically significant differences of cement defects before thermocycling were reported, where brushing showed more defects than probing (p = 0.0161). After thermocycling, the defects increased for both groups. Extensive discoloration was the most common (55.56%) when removing excess by probing; by brushing, 90% of the specimens exhibited slight discoloration (p = 0.008). Regression analysis showed no relationship between type of defect and degree of discoloration. Removing cement with a brush causes more marginal defects, however less discoloration after thermocycling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The intraosseous temperature during implant installation has never been evaluated in an in vivo controlled setup. The aims were to investigate the influence of a drilling protocol and implant surface on the intraosseous temperature during implant installation, to evaluate the influence of temperature increase on osseointegration and to calculate the heat distribution in cortical bone. Methods: Forty Brånemark implants were installed into the metatarsal bone of Finnish Dorset crossbred sheep according to two different drilling protocols (undersized/non-undersized) and two surfaces (moderately rough/turned). The intraosseous temperature was recorded, and Finite Element Model (FEM) was generated to understand the thermal behavior. Non-decalcified histology was carried out after five weeks of healing. The following osseointegration parameters were calculated: Bone-to-implant contact (BIC), Bone Area Fraction Occupancy (BAFO), and Bone Area Fraction Occupancy up to 1.5 mm (BA1.5). A multiple regression model was used to identify the influencing variables on the histomorphometric parameters. Results: The temperature was affected by the drilling protocol, while no influence was demonstrated by the implant surface. BIC was positively influenced by the undersized drilling protocol and rough surface, BAFO was negatively influenced by the temperature rise, and BA1.5 was negatively influenced by the undersized drilling protocol. FEM showed that the temperature at the implant interface might exceed the limit for bone necrosis. Conclusion: The intraosseous temperature is greatly increased by an undersized drilling protocol but not from the implant surface. The temperature increase negatively affects the bone healing in the proximity of the implant. The undersized drilling protocol for Brånemark implant systems increases the amount of bone at the interface, but it negatively impacts the bone far from the implant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]