Search

Although rare, oral manifestations of hypersensitivity reactions in orthodontic patients pose a significant clinical challenge due to their heterogeneous presentations, and can cause discomfort and pain, possibly impacting patients' quality of life and orthodontic treatment duration and outcomes. This comprehensive review aimed to elucidate the oral, perioral, and systemic manifestations of hypersensitivity reactions in orthodontic subjects, focusing on patients with fixed appliances, removable appliances, and clear aligners, and detailing their epidemiology, macroscopic and microscopic features, allergy testing, clinical implications, and specific management strategies. Oral and extra-oral manifestations of (immediate and delayed) hypersensitivity reactions occur rarely and are due to the release of metal and non-metal ions from orthodontic appliances. They typically present as erythema, erosive–ulcerative lesions, and gingival hyperplasia, with histopathological findings showing inflammatory infiltrates. Nickel is a significant allergen, and diagnostic tests like patch tests are essential for managing these reactions. Likely due to prolonged contact with oral tissues, fixed orthodontic appliances pose a higher risk compared to removable appliances and clear aligners. Early identification and removal of allergenic materials, combined with effective treatments, can resolve symptoms and prevent recurrence. Keeping dental and medical records updated and knowing family and personal medical histories helps clinicians choose appropriate materials and counsel patients about potential risks. Proper patient education, regular monitoring, and using hypoallergenic materials are key strategies for managing these reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Root canal treatment represents a significant challenge as current cleaning and disinfection methodologies fail to remove persistent bacterial biofilms within the intricate anatomical structures. Recently, the field of nanotechnology has emerged as a promising frontier with numerous biomedical applications. Among the most notable contributions of nanotechnology are nanoparticles, which possess antimicrobial, antifungal, and antiviral properties. Nanoparticles cause the destructuring of bacterial walls, increasing the permeability of the cell membrane, stimulating the generation of reactive oxygen species, and interrupting the replication of deoxyribonucleic acid through the controlled release of ions. Thus, they could revolutionize endodontics, obtaining superior results and guaranteeing a promising short- and long-term prognosis. Therefore, chitosan, silver, graphene, poly(lactic) co-glycolic acid, bioactive glass, mesoporous calcium silicate, hydroxyapatite, zirconia, glucose oxidase magnetic, copper, and zinc oxide nanoparticles in endodontic therapy have been investigated in the present review. The diversified antimicrobial mechanisms of action, the numerous applications, and the high degree of clinical safety could encourage the scientific community to adopt nanoparticles as potential drugs for the treatment of endodontic diseases, overcoming the limitations related to antibiotic resistance and eradication of the biofilm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most common techniques for alveolar bone augmentation are guided bone regeneration (GBR) and autologous bone grafting. GBR studies demonstrated long-term reabsorption using heterologous bone graft. A general consensus has been achieved in implant surgery for a minimal amount of 2 mm of healthy bone around the implant.

A prosthetic rehabilitation, whether supported by implants, teeth, or mucous membranes, must be functionally and aesthetically adequate, so it is essential that the oral structures are reproduced as accurately as possible. The purpose of this overview is to evaluate the accuracy, time of digital impressions, and patient preference compared to those of conventional high-precision in vivo impressions. This umbrella review was developed following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement and was registered in the PROSPERO systematic review registry. The search method and study selection were based on the PEO (Population–Exposure–Outcome) model, a modified version of the PICO model. Systematic reviews regarding the dental impression technique made using an intraoral scanner versus the analog impression technique made with high-precision impression materials were searched electronically up to 1 February 2023 among articles published in English, through numerous registries and databases, such as PROSPERO e, Scopus, MEDLINE/ PubMed, BioMed Central, and Cochrane Library. The records screened totaled 2942, but only 23 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 tool was used to evaluate the quality assessment of the systematic reviews included in this umbrella review. Accuracy, time, and patient preference for digital impressions were compared with those of high-precision conventional impressions. A total of 23 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. From the analysis of this umbrella review, the data on the accuracy between the two methods of taking the impression are conflicting, especially as regards full-arch rehabilitations. However, the digital impression seems to be preferred over the analog one as regards time and patient preference. However, there is limited high-quality evidence available for studying conventional and digital implant impressions. The results obtained are limited to the type of review performed, and the type of studies included was limited by the settings and study designs. Furthermore, another important limitation highlighted was that the digital scanners analyzed in the various studies are not the same, and the number of missing teeth or implants inserted is not the same. More in vivo clinical studies and RCTs are needed to increase the level of evidence for impression procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]