Search

Objectives: To evaluate the longevity of resin composite restorations placed in posterior teeth by dental students, using data from electronic records from 2008 to 2019., Materials and Methods: Demographic (gender and age) and clinical variables (dental group, position in dental arch, and the number of restored surfaces) were evaluated. The 5-year follow-up was assessed according to the day the restoration was placed. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to calculate the annual failure rate. Data were analyzed by Chi-Square, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney tests (α = 0.05)., Results: In total, 3.883 records relative to return periodicity were analyzed. The final sample consisted of 900 restorations from 479 patients. The majority were females, aged between 31 and 60. In total, 256 failures were reported (success rate = 78%), showing an annual failure rate of 2.05%. The main reasons for failures were restoration replacement (55.5%), endodontics (21.9%), prosthetics (14.5%) and extraction (8.2%). There was a higher risk of failure in restorations involving three or more surfaces (p = 0.000) and in patients over 60 years (p < 0.001). In females (p = 0.030), molars (p = 0.044), and maxillary teeth (p = 0.038) failed in a shorter time., Conclusions: Resin composite restorations placed in permanent posterior teeth by dental students had high survival rates. The main reason for failure was the replacement of restorations. The age group and the number of restored surfaces significantly affected the success of the restorations., Clinical Relevance: The electronic health records over 12 years showed that 78% of the resin restorations in posterior teeth placed by dental students were successful for a minimum of five years., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Objectives: to evaluate trueness and precision of digital casts from intraoral scanning (IOS) and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT); trueness and precision of 3D-printed casts using digital light processing (DLP) and fused deposition modeling (FDM); the influence of digitizing method in the 3D-printed casts and, to compare STL data after DICOM segmentation and conversion., Methods: a reference cast was digitized with IOS and CBCT, and 3D-printed using FDM and DLP. Linear measurements of occlusocervical (OC), interarch (IEA), and mesiodistal (MD) dimensions were taken on reference, digital and 3D-printed casts. Trueness was observed as the distortion, and precision was observed as the variation of measurements. One and Two-way ANOVA, Student t-test, and Chi-Square were applied to analyze data., Results: distortion varied between digital casts for all dimensions; at OC, both showed expanded dimensions with IOS being significantly greater; in turn, CBCT digital casts showed higher distortion at IEA and MD. Dimensions of 3D-printed casts showed a predominance of shrinkage, DLP presented higher distortion compared to FDM for both digitizing methods. Digitizing methods influenced the 3D-printing of casts, especially for DLP. Regarding precision, no statistical difference was found. STL converted from DICOM showed statistical difference in IEA (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: digital casts showed distortion depending on the digitizing method. IOS was better in IEA and MD, and CBCT in OC dimensions. Overall, DLP casts presented higher distortion compared to FDM. The digitizing method influences trueness on 3D-printed casts. File conversion from DICOM to STL per se could change the dimension., Clinical Significance: This investigation showed that digital casts from IOS and CBCT as well 3D-printed casts from FDM and DLP can show different trueness. It is clinically relevant as clinicians have various workflows available in Digital Dentistry which involve these digitizing and manufacturing methods., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: This study investigated whether a sample of anterior resin composite restorations could be differently evaluated in different centers of evaluation by clinical and lay evaluators., Methods: Anterior resin composite restorations on high-quality intraoral digital photography were evaluated using FDI criteria (1-5 score) by pairs of clinical and lay evaluators in Brazil (BR), France (FR), Peru (PE), and the United States of America (USA). Scores were allocated as maintenance (1, 2, 3), repair (4) and replacement (5) when comparing clinical evaluators and, as acceptable (1, 2, 3) and unacceptable (4, 5) when comparing clinical vs. lay evaluators and lay vs. lay evaluators. The Chi-square test compared the frequencies of scores among the centers., Results: The frequencies of maintaining, repairing, or replacing anterior resin composite restorations given by clinical evaluators varied depending on the evaluation center. BR and PE showed the highest frequencies for repair and replacement, while FR and USA showed the highest frequencies for maintenance. The comparison of frequencies of anterior resin composite restorations accepted or unaccepted by the clinical vs lay evaluators in the same centers showed a significantly higher frequency of acceptable dental restorations coming from clinical evaluators. Comparison between lay evaluators from different centers showed significant higher frequency of unacceptable dental restorations by BR, compared to other centers., Conclusions: In the evaluation of anterior resin composite restorations, the maintenance, repair, or replacement trends can vary among different centers. The unacceptable rate came more frequently from lay than from clinical evaluators. Lay evaluators from different centers differed significantly., Clinical Significance: Clinical and lay evaluators in distant evaluation centers can present different trends when assessing anterior resin composite restoration. Multicenter evaluations can help to understand such differences and it is important because clinical decision-making based on scientific evidence comes from clinical studies done in different research centers., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objectives: This study observed whether changes in diagnosis caused by analysis of three-dimensional images can lead to alterations in the treatment plans of impacted lower third molars (ILTMs)., Methods: Sets of panoramic (PAN) - cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) of 218 patients were assessed for ILTM classification, contact with mandibular canal, contact and resorption of the lower second molar (LSM), intraoperative planning and post-operative expectations., Results: Percentage agreement and McNemar test compared PAN vs CBCT assessments. Logistic regression analyzed the dependency of change in surgical planning considering the changes in diagnostic features; descriptive statistics was used to observe the expectation of post-operative complications and paresthesia. Differences were found between PAN vs CBCT for classification of impaction and positioning, LSM relationship, choice for crown and root sectioning and expectation of post-operative complications (all with p < 0.001). Logistic regression indicated that the change in diagnosis caused by CBCT examination did not change the clinical decision to extract ILTM but altered the planning of intraoperative steps such as osteotomy, crown sectioning and relaxing incision. The expectation of post-operative complications decreased when professionals planned the ILTM removal using tri-dimensional images., Conclusions: We concluded that changes in the diagnosis after CBCT examination can lead to alterations in the treatment plan of impacted lower third molar.

The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the influence of high-power lasers (Nd:YAG and diode 980 nm) associated with mineral coal as fotopotencializer on bond strength of an epoxy resin-based root canal sealer to root dentin, using the pushout test, and on the dentin/filling material interface, using confocal laser microscopy. For this purposes, 50 canines were instrumented with Mtwo rotary system up to #50.04 instrument and randomly assigned to five groups (n = 10): group I-control EDTAC; group II-EDTAC and Nd:YAG laser; group III-EDTAC and diode laser 980 nm; group IV-EDTAC, Nd:YAG laser and mineral coal 5 g/100 mL; and group V-EDTAC, diode laser 980 nm and mineral coal 5 g/100 mL. All data were analyzed by ANOVA (at 5% significance level) following the Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn and Tukey tests. The group I increased more bond strength of the sealer to root dentin that treated with only EDTAC 17% (17.21 ± 21.75 MPa), similar to the group II (12.21 ± 18.20 MPa) and group IV (14.92 ± 28.06 MPa), both treated with Nd:YAG laser, with the exception of group IV, which was added to mineral coal. The group V (8.75 ± 13.42 MPa) had similar results to the groups II and IV, but the same similarity were found when compared with group III (7.11 + 11.28 MPa), with lower results. Regarding the root thirds, the apical third (23.27 ± 29.21 MPa) presented a statistically higher value on bond strength than the cervical third (5.92 ± 5.33 MPa) and middle third (6.93 ± 7, 11 MPa) (p > 0.05). Group II (86.27 μm) showed the highest tags penetration values, with a statistically difference to the group III (51.57 μm), IV (36.77 μm) and V (32.37 μm) (p < 0.05). Group I (71.63 μm) was statistically similar to groups II and III (p > 0.05). Group IV had the lowest values and was statistically similarity to groups III and V (p > 0.05). It was concluded that the treatment with Nd:YAG laser provides better results than the diode 980 nm laser, except when was added mineral coal. The control and diode 980 nm laser groups presented less adhesive failures and more mists failures than the other groups. Both lasers did not interfere negatively compared to the control group.