Provisional restorations represent an important phase during the rehabilitation process, knowledge of the mechanical properties of the available materials allows us to predict their clinical performance. At present, there is no systematic review, which supports the clinicians’ criteria, in the selection of a specific material over another for a particular clinical situation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess and compare the mechanical properties of dimethacrylates and monomethacrylates used in fabricating direct provisional restorations, in terms of flexural strength, fracture toughness and hardness. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. The searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report and were complemented by hand-searching, with no limitation of time or language up to January 10, 2017. Studies that assess and compare the mechanical properties of dimethacrylate- and monomethacrylate-based provisional restoration materials were selected. A quality assessment of full-text articles were performed according to modified ARRIVE and CONSORT criteria and modified Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for in vitro studies. Initially, 256 articles were identified. After removing the duplicates and applying the selection criteria, 24 articles were included in the qualitative synthesis and 7 were included in the quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). It may be concluded that dimethacrylate-based provisional restorations presented better mechanical behavior than monomethacrylate-based ones in terms of flexural strength and hardness. Fracture toughness showed no significant differences. Within the monomethacrylate group, polymethylmethacrylate showed greater flexural strength than polyethylmethacrylate.

No abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the methodological quality and the risk of bias of systematic reviews with regard to the literature on therapies for sleep bruxism (SB) in dentistry, applying the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) qualitative guide, as well as the effectiveness of various kinds of treatment of SB. Initially, a total of 1,499 articles were obtained from 4 databases and 2 websites. Relevant articles were obtained from the PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase databases as well as from Google Scholar and OpenGrey. Six systematic reviews that met the eligibility criteria were included. The methodological quality of all systematic reviews, assessed with the AMSTAR 2 tool, was critically low. Regarding treatment effectiveness, 5 systematic reviews reported on pharmacological management (botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A), clonazepam and clonidine), 2 reported on oral appliances (OAs) (stabilizing splints and mandibular advancement devices (MADs)) and 1 study addressed the effects of biofeedback (BF). The results of the therapies were diverse and confusing. The available research is not conclusive, and does not show clear evidence or a consensus on the part of researchers on the most effective treatment for the management of SB. More research of better methodological quality is needed in this area.

The objective of this narrative review was to compare and analyze published articles on the mechanical properties of 3D printed fixed dental restorations compared to restorations fabricated with CAD/CAM and/or conventional milled composite and/or acrylic resins and to answer the following research question: Do 3D printed posterior restorations have increased flexural strength compared to restorations made of composite resin and/or acrylic resin? Articles were searched using the following electronic databases: PubMed, GOOGLE SCHOOLAR. This literature review was structured based on the guidelines given by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The PICO/PECO (Participant, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) focused question was: "Do restorations printed on 3D printers (I) for the posterior sector (P) have higher flexural strength (O) compared to restorations made of composite resin and/or acrylic resin (C)?". Of the two hundred and thirty-five titles, which were recognized after a primary search, fourteen articles were included in the analysis. The evidence available after performing this narrative review indicates that 3D-printed posterior fixed restorations have comparable mechanical behavior to CAD/CAM-engineered posterior fixed restorations in terms of flexural strength.

Review question / Objective: - Does the osseodensification drilling technique increase primary stability in low-density bone? - The aim of the present investigation was to evaluate primary stability in dental implants in people with low density bone using the osseodensification technique. Condition being studied: The replacement of missing teeth through dental implants is currently the most practiced in dental clinics. The main criterion for determining the success of an implant is osseointegration, which is a direct structural and functional connection between vital bone and the prosthetic load-bearing surface of an implant. In the same way, primary stability must be obtained for a good lasting clinical result of the implant and to achieve this purpose, the bone density must be evaluated where the dental implant is to be placed. Salah Huwais in 2013 introduced a new osteotomy procedure (Oseodensification) for site preparation without removal and bone preservation. The Osseodensification process produces an autograft layer around the implant with the osteotomy surface, the autologous bone comes into contact through an endosteal device that accelerates osseointegration due to the nucleation of osteoblasts in the instrumented bone adjacent to the implant and has a greater primary stability due to contact between the device and the bone.