Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sterilization effectiveness against biofilms on retrieved healing abutments used in implant dentistry. Background A large number of clinicians reuse healing abutments to decrease treatment costs although it can promote infection due to the presence of remnant biofilm biomass. Methods One hundred and eighty‐five titanium healing abutments previously used for 3 months in oral cavity were assessed in this study. Abutments were submitted to cleaning, chemical disinfection, and autoclave sterilization according to clinical guidelines. The abutments were aseptically placed into glass tubes containing specific bacterial growth medium and then incubated for 10 days. From glass tubes with bacterial growth, 100 µl medium was transferred to Schaedler's agar for morphological identification and counting of strict anaerobes and to Columbia blood agar for presumptive identification of facultative anaerobes after incubation. Isolated strains were then identified at species level by enzymatic and biochemical tests within API microorganism detection platform. Also, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was performed for identification of undefined strains. Results After the standard cleaning and sterilization procedures, fifty‐six (approximately 30%) retrieved abutments showed the presence of remnant biofilm biomass. The bacteria identified into the remnant biofilms covering the abutments were representative of the commensal oral microbiota including Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Prevotella intermedia, and Enterococcus faecalis. Conclusion Although some healing abutments did not reveal the existence of bacteria, organic components from biofilm biomass are still strongly adhered on the retentive micro‐regions and surfaces of abutments and therefore that would support the accumulation of biofilm including pathogenic species leading to patients’ cross‐infections. Further studies should be performed on the assessment of different materials, design, and connections of the healing abutments associated with clinical disinfection procedures in implant dentistry.

Thermal and self-curing acrylic resins are frequently and versatilely used in dental medicine since they are biocompatible, have no flavor or odor, have satisfactory thermal qualities and polishing capacity, and are easy and fast. Thus, given their widespread use, their fracture resistance behavior is especially important. In this research work, we comparatively analyzed the fracture resistance capacity of thermo and self-curing acrylic resins in vitro. Materials and Methods: Five prosthesis bases were created for each of the following acrylic resins: Lucitone®, ProBase®, and Megacryl®, which were submitted to different forces through the use of the CS® Dental Testing Machine, usually mobilized in the context of fatigue tests. To this end, a point was defined in the center of the anterior edge of the aforementioned acrylic resin bases, for which the peak tended until a fracture occurred. Thermosetting resins were, on average, more resistant to fracture than self-curable resins, although the difference was not statistically significant. The thermosetting resins of the Lucitone® and Probase® brands demonstrated behavior that was more resistant to fracture than the self-curing homologues, although the difference was not statistically significant. Thermosetting resins tended to be, on average, more resistant to fracture and exhibited the maximum values for impact strength, compressive strength, tensile strength, hardness, and dimensional accuracy than self-curing resins, regardless of brand.

(1) Introduction: Denture adhesives (DAs) promote stability, chewing ability, and quality of life. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of original brand DAs and white brands in their retention of conventional complete dentures. (2) Methods: This study followed the recommendations of the international standard ISO 10873. Three original brands of DA (Corega® Fixação 3D, GlaxoSmithKline®, Stafford Miller Ltd., Dungarvan Co. Waterford, Ireland), KuKident® Pro Procter & Gamble Technical Centres®, Ltd., Whitehal Lane, Germany and Elgydium® Fix, Laboratórios URGO® SL, Florida, Spain) were compared to three white brands (Fixação Extra Forte Pingo Doce®, Laboratórios Cosmodent®, Cantabria, Spain), Fixador de Próteses (Continente®, Propack®,Gmbh, Ladenburg, Germany) and Creme Fixador de Próteses (Auchan®, Ellipse®, Roubaix, France). Their retention capacities were analyzed using a mechanical test device. (3) Results: The mean retentive ability of original brand adhesives (M = 11.16, SD = 5.27) was significantly higher (t(298) = 11.88; p < 0.001) than that of the white brands (M = 5.92, SD = 1.18). When comparing all brands, statistically significant differences were also observed, F(5.294) = 707.68 (p < 0.001). The generic adhesive results were more homogeneous. The generic brands from Continente® (M = 5.24, SD = 0.94) and Auchan® (M = 5.80, SD = 0.79) were not significantly different, while the Pingo Doce® brand obtained significantly higher mean retention results (M = 6.71, SD = 1.28). (4) Conclusions: The original brands of DA have a significantly higher retentive ability than the white brands. Elygidim® Fix had the worst result of the three original brands, and the product from Pingo Doce® had the best result among the three white brands.

Temporary restorations play a fundamental role in oral rehabilitation. They can be used on teeth or implants for a variable period of time during the period prior to rehabilitation with definitive restorations. Temporary or provisional restorations manufactured via CAD/CAM methods are becoming increasingly used in the intermediate phase of the treatment of complex cases. The main objective of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of three materials used in the creation of provisional crowns on implants: polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), composite resin, and polyether ether ketone (PEEK). Fracture resistance in PMMA (Zirkonzahn Temp Basic® , Gais, South Tyrol, Italy) ranged from 1216.0 N to 1461.2 N, with a mean of 1300.4 N (SD = 97.09). In the composite material (3M Lava Ultimate®, Minnesota, USA), fracture resistance varied between 1343.5 N and 1490.6 N, with a mean of 1425.9 N (SD = 49.03). Lastly, in PEEK (Tecno Med Mineral®, Zirkonzahn®, Gais, South Tyrol, Italy), fracture resistance ranged from 2294.8 N to 2451.7 N, with a mean of 2359.5 (SD = 50.01). The crowns made with the PEEK Tecno Med Mineral® (Zirkonzahn®, Tyrol, Italy) material presented the best fracture resistance, followed by the crowns made with the Lava Ultimate® (3M® ESPE, Minnesota, USA) composite resin material and, finally, those made with the PMMA Temp Basic® (Zirkonzahn®, Tyrol, Italy) material.