IntroductionStudies have investigated the relationships between chronic systemic and dental conditions, but it remains unclear how such knowledge can be used in clinical practice. In this article, we provide an overview of existing systematic reviews, identifying and evaluating the most frequently reported dental–chronic disease correlations and common risk factors.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of existing systematic reviews (umbrella review) published between 1995 and 2017 and indexed in 4 databases. We focused on the 3 most prevalent dental conditions and 10 chronic systemic diseases with the highest burden of disease in Germany. Two independent reviewers assessed all articles for eligibility and methodologic quality using the AMSTAR criteria and extracted data from the included studies.ResultsOf the initially identified 1,249 systematic reviews, 32 were included for qualitative synthesis. The dental condition with most frequently observed correlations to chronic systemic diseases was periodontitis. The chronic systemic disease with the most frequently observed correlations with a dental condition was type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Most dental–chronic disease correlations were found between periodontitis and T2DM and periodontitis and cardiovascular disease. Frequently reported common risk factors were smoking, age, sex, and overweight. Using the AMSTAR criteria, 2 studies were assessed as low quality, 26 studies as moderate quality, and 4 studies as high quality.ConclusionThe quality of included systematic reviews was heterogeneous. The most frequently reported correlations were found for periodontitis with T2DM and for periodontitis with cardiovascular disease. However, the strength of evidence for these and other disease correlations is limited, and the evidence to assess the causality of these disease correlations remains unclear. Future research should focus on the causality of disease links in order to provide more decisive evidence with respect to the design of intersectoral care processes.

Within the limitations of this study, the BBG-D method remains the gold standard for lateral alveolar ridge augmentation compared to the shell technique because of the lower complication rates.

The removal of excess cement and recementation with TB had an anti-inflammatory effect on the peri-implant tissues after 1 year.

Background. Little is known about the clinical impact of new root canal preparation systems in general dental practice under routine care conditions. Therefore, we compared hand instrumentation (H) with Reciproc (R) (VDW, Munich, Germany) preparation. The outcomes were endodontic related pain and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL), evaluation of the procedures by the patients and the strain felt by the dentists during root canal therapy.Methods. Six dentists participated in the trial as practitioner–investigators. In the first phase of the trial they prepared root canals with H and in the second phase with R. The patients documented their pain felt with a visual analogue scale (VAS 100) and OHRQoL with the German short version of the oral health impact profile (OHIP-G-14) before treatment and before the completion of therapy and answered questions about how they experienced the treatment. The dentists documented their physical strain during treatment.Results. A total of 137 patients were included in the evaluation. 66 patients were treated with H, 71 with R. Pain reduction was 32.6 (SD 32.9) VAS (H) vs. 29.4 (SD 26.9) VAS (R) (p = 0.550), and the improvement of the OHIP-14 score was 5.5 (SD 9.2) (H) vs. 6.7 (SD 7.4) (R) (p = 0.383). There were no statistical differences in both groups. Significantly fewer patients felt stressed by the duration of treatment with R as with H (p = 0.018). Significantly more dentists reported that their general physical strain and the strain on their fingers were less severe with R than with H (p = 0.013 and p < 0.001).Discussion. H as well as R effectively reduced endodontic related pain and OHRQoL without statistical differences. R has advantages in terms of how patients experience the treatment and regarding the physical strain felt by the dentists.

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of four root canal preparation systems in newly developed 3D-printed root canal models.Materials and methodsFor this study, 1080 3D-printed acrylic resin blocks with nine different root canal configurations were produced. They were prepared with Reciproc R25 (#25), F6 SkyTaper (#25 and #30) F360 (#25 and #35) and One Shape (#25) (N = 30 per system). Pre- and post-instrumentation images were superimposed for evaluation of the centering ratio of the different systems. Ledges, instrument fractures and preparation times were also recorded. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey tests were conducted, comparing the mean canal centering ratios and the mean preparation times.ResultsThere were significant differences between all systems regarding the centering ratios in the different root canal configurations (ANOVA p < 0.001). The root canal configuration had considerable effect on the centering ratio of the instruments. The best overall mean centering ratios were achieved with F6 SkyTaper #25 instruments especially in canal configurations with big curvature angles and radii, while F360 #35 was least centered especially in canals with small curvature angles and radii. Most ledges occurred with OneShape, while it was the significantly (p < 0.001) fastest preparation system (86.7 s (SD 13.53)) and Reciproc the significantly (p < 0.001) slowest (103.0 s (SD 20.67)).Conclusion3D-printed root canals are suitable to produce challenging canal configurations and to investigate the limitations of root canal instruments. We found that all instruments caused canal transportations. However, F6 SkyTaper #25 files had better overall centering ratios than the other instruments. In canal configurations with small curvature radii, the centering ratio of some instruments is low and the probability for ledges is increased.