Aim of our study. To evaluate the difference between sensory detection threshold reactions of teeth under orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances, determined by electrical and thermal pulp testing. Material and methods. After a selection based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 51 patients with a mean age of 19,3+/- 3,6 years old who presented to the Center for Integrated Dental Medicine of the Faculty of Dental Medicine from Târgu Mureș for orthodontic treatment had been included in this study. The reactions to thermal and electrical pulp testing were measured at baseline, after 8 weeks of treatment and during the contention period. Results. The application of orthodontic force immediately increased the response threshold which peaked after 8 weeks. Conclusions. Based on these results we conclude that dental specialists should interpret with caution the results of electric pulp testing in teeth under orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances as the cold tests with ethyl chloride are more reliable.

The impairment of aesthetic function leads to a decreased quality of life. An unaesthetic smile due to excessive gingival exposure demands, most of the time, a complex treatment in which the objective is the vertical reduction of the amount of exposed fixed gingiva by obtaining a complete exposure of the anatomical crown of the teeth and restoring the ideal dimensions of the biological width. This paper presents a case of a 48-year-old female patient who was unsatisfied with her aesthetics and had disturbed masticatory function due to the absence of some posterior teeth. The cone beam computed tomography was performed to evaluate the facial and dental morphology. The treatment plan included diode laser and piezo-surgery utilization for the frontal area of the upper arch and implants to restore the distal area of the lower and upper arch. Zirconia ceramic was used for the final restorations. This complex and multidisciplinary full-mouth rehabilitation lasted for two years, and the patient was pleased with the result. This case showed that a well-established treatment plan is necessary to obtain long-lasting results. The use of adequate procedures and equipment ensures a predictable result.

Background and Objectives: Appropriate tooth preparation is mandatory to obtain a perfect marginal fit of fixed restorations. The heavy chamfer is the most commonly used finish line, especially for minimally invasive tooth preparation. The aim of the study was to compare the width of the finish line obtained during tooth preparation performed by experienced (university lecturers) and inexperienced persons (dental students) in different working times and positions. Materials and Methods: Forty left upper-second molars were prepared on the simulator by each participant, totalizing 160 prepared teeth. A new round-end tapered diamond was used to obtain the 0.5 mm width of the heavy chamfer. The prepared teeth were photographed using a Canon D5300 camera with a macro lens attached to a tripod. The measurements were made with the Image-Pro Insight software selecting the same eight reference points. From these points, perpendicular lines were drawn above the finish line to the axial walls and the distance between the chamfer’s outer edge and the axial wall’s inner edge was measured. GraphPad Instat and NCSS Dowson Edition software were used. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) were calculated. The used tests: one sample t-test, ANOVA test, and Tukey–Kramer Multiple Comparisons Test. Results: Statistically significant differences were obtained according to the experience of the participant, preparation time, patient’s position, and the chamfer width on the prepared tooth different surfaces. Conclusions: Daytime or weeklong tiredness and patient position do not affect the width of the heavy chamfer prepared by experienced and inexperienced persons. The experience and the operator’s working position influence the width of the prepared finish line.

During impressions, bacteria, viruses, and fungi remain on the impression material, representing a significant risk for the medical team (dentists, dental assistants, and laboratory technicians). Impression disinfectants have been introduced into dentistry to reduce the risk of cross-infection. This study was performed by examining the surface disinfection of five commonly used impression materials in prosthodontics: alginate-Tropicalgin (Zhermack®), condensation silicone-Zetaplus (Zhermack®), Oranwash L (Zhermack®); and addition silicone-Elite HD + Putty Soft (Zhermack®), Elite + Light Body (Zhermack®) after the disinfection with three disinfectants: Zeta 3 Soft (Zhermack®), Zeta 7 Spray (Zhermack®) and Zeta 7 Solution (Zhermack®). Before disinfection, the impression materials were contaminated with Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923, Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, and Candida albicans ATCC 10213. Our results demonstrate the efficacy of the two examined specific disinfectants in reducing cross-infection risk. The surface disinfectant-spray is not adequate for impression disinfection. A high number of bacterial colonies were found on the surface of all impressions disinfected with this spray. The immersion-disinfection method effectively eliminates the risk of cross-infections (Kruskal–Wallis test showed a p < 0.001).

Objectives: Fixed orthodontic appliances make daily application of oral hygiene standard procedures more difficult and in time may lead to accumulation of oral biofilms and development of gingivitis and hyperplasia. The aim of the study is to evaluate the periodontal health expressed by clinical indices in patients under orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances, according to different oral hygene maintenance programs. Material and method: We performed a randomized prospective study on 60 patients with fixed orthodontic appliances (17-25 years of age) devided in three study groups. The clnical indices recorded were: modified gingival index, plaque index and sulcular bleeding index. Statistical analysis or the results were carried out using Student t test. Results: The patients were randomly divided into three groups: group A-patients were instructed to use electric brush, water flosser and interdental brush, group B-electric brush, interdental brush and fluoride and group C-manual brushing and fluoride. Statistical comparison of the values of the indexes with the Student t test for independent samples showed statistically significant differences in all three groups of patients studied between initial and final values of all recorded clinical parameters. Conclusions: Fixed orthodontics do not induce periodontal disease if basic principles of oral hygiene are followed in compliant patients, which are correctly instructed to deal with real challenge, represented by complete elimination of debris and bacterial accumulation.