AimTo assess knowledge, training of dental staff and the availability of emergency drugs and equipment in dental clinics, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.MethodsCross-sectional survey was conducted in a random sample (N: 325) of governmental and private clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, between June-December 2016. Questions included Dentist’s specialty, age, years of experience, knowledge and preparedness to handle ME (level of training, types of emergency drugs and equipment available).ResultsOne dentist from each clinic filled the questionnaire (100% of the sample), 19% of whom were general dentists. Medical history is taken orally by 86% of respondents before dental treatment and 12% take vital signs every visit.Of the surveyed clinics, 30% didn’t have emergency contact numbers available, 78% didn’t have an emergency protocol and only 54% have a medical emergency plan with 11% performing periodic office emergency drills.The most available emergency drug and equipment were Aspirin (53%) and Sphygmomanometer (86%). Oxygen delivery device was not available in 90% of the surveyed clinics.ConclusionThere is an alarming inadequacy of clinic/staff preparation to deal with ME. Efforts should be made to increase the awareness of dentists to take needed precautions and prepare their clinics.

The purpose of this in vitro study is to compare the roughness and gloss of four resin-modified CAD/CAM ceramics after different surface treatments. Forty-eight specimens (1.20 × 12 mm2) were prepared from Lava Ultimate (LU), Vita Enamic (VE), Cerasmart (CS), and Crystal Ultra (CU) CAD/CAM ceramics. The prepared specimens were polished with silicon carbide paper before being roughened with a 30 µm grit diamond bur. Each material was allocated into four groups: control (no treatment), Luster Meisinger polishing (MP), Optiglaze (OG), or Meisinger polishing, followed by a final polishing with Shofu Direct Dia Paste (MP+PP). The roughness and gloss were measured after the surface treatment using a profilometer and gloss meter, respectively. Scanning electron microscopy micrographs were obtained to analyze the surface characteristics. Statistical analysis was performed using a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), one-way ANOVA, and Dunnett’s post hoc test (α = 0.05). The surface treatments significantly affected the surface roughness and gloss of the tested materials (p < 0.05). All the tested resin-modified CAD/CAM ceramics demonstrated a lower surface roughness and higher gloss after glazing using OG, followed by MP+PP and MP. The highest and lowest Ra were presented by the control VE (0.63 ± 0.23 µm) and glazed LU specimens (0.04 ± 0.01 µm), respectively. The highest and lowest GU were presented by the glazed LU (90.48 ± 4.69 GU) and the control VE specimens (23.32 ± 2.41 GU), respectively. After clinical adjustment, finishing, and polishing, the restoration is essential to obtain a restorative surface with lower roughness and the highest gloss. Surface glazing using Optiglaze exhibited the smoothest and glossiest surface of all the tested resin-modified ceramics.

This in vitro study compared the color change (∆E) and biaxial flexural strength (BFS) of two resin nanoceramics (LU and CS) and two polymer-infiltrated ceramic networks (VE and CU) after different surface finishing protocols. A total of 192 discs (12 × 1.2 mm2) were prepared from the materials (n = 48) and then polished with 1200-grit silicon carbide paper, followed by roughening with a 30 µm grit diamond bur. According to the surface finishing applied, the discs from each material category were categorized into four groups: control group (no finishing), polishing (MP), glazing (OG), or a combination of MP and additional polishing (MP+PP). Following surface finishing, all the discs were immersed in a coffee beverage to simulate one year of clinical use. A spectrophotometer and universal testing machine were used to measure the ∆E and BFS, respectively. Fractographic analysis was performed using scanning electron microscopy images. Multivariate analysis of variance was used for the statistical analysis, followed by one-way ANOVA and post hoc Dunnett’s test (a = 0.05). The ∆E and BFS were significantly impacted by material type and surface finishing (p ≤ 0.05). Irrespective of the materials and finishing, untreated LU and OG-treated VE specimens demonstrated the highest (2.98 ± 0.36) and lowest (1.21 ± 0.33) color changes. Regarding BFS, untreated CU and OG-treated CS specimens demonstrated the lowest (121.88 ± 2.08 MPa) and highest (174.17 ± 3.83 MPa) values. Surface finishing using glazing resulted in the highest BFS and lowest ∆E compared to other surface finishing protocols for the tested materials. VE demonstrated the least color changes, and CS showed the highest BFS following surface finishing of the materials tested. Surface finishing is material dependent; thus, it is critical to use the best surface finishing protocol in a clinical setting.