Reconstruction of bony defects is challenging when conventional grafting methods are used because of their intrinsic limitations (biological cost and/or biological properties). Bone regeneration techniques are rapidly evolving since the introduction of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting. Bone tissue engineering is a branch of regenerative medicine that aims to find new solutions to treat bone defects, which can be repaired by 3D printed living tissues. Its aim is to overcome the limitations of conventional treatment options by improving osteoinduction and osteoconduction. Several techniques of bone bioprinting have been developed: inkjet, extrusion, and light-based 3D printers are nowadays available. Bioinks, i.e., the printing materials, also presented an evolution over the years. It seems that these new technologies might be extremely promising for bone regeneration. The purpose of the present review is to give a comprehensive summary of the past, the present, and future developments of bone bioprinting and bioinks, focusing the attention on crucial aspects of bone bioprinting such as selecting cell sources and attaining a viable vascularization within the newly printed bone. The main bioprinters currently available on the market and their characteristics have been taken into consideration, as well.

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the hardness and shrinkage stress (SS) of six bulk-fill resin composites. To evaluate microhardness (MH), ten 6 mm specimens were prepared using a metal mold for each selected bulk-fill resin composite and irradiated from the top side for 40 s using an LED light. After 24 h of storage, Vickers MH was evaluated on the upper, lower and lateral sides of the specimens. SS evaluation was then performed with a universal machine, which evaluated the contraction force generated by a bulk-fill composite specimen placed between two metal cylinders during and after light curing. The results were evaluated with a one-way ANOVA test with a post-hoc Bonferroni test and linear regression analysis (p < 0.05). All materials showed a significant MH decrease between the top and bottom surfaces. However, the bulk-fill materials tested performed differently when considering lateral depth progression. ANOVA tests for SS evaluation showed that both SDR and Venus Bulk Fill had significantly lower stress during irradiation than other tested materials. Further, MH decrease became significantly lower from the top surface at different depths in each tested group. Among the different resins, Venus Bulk Fill and SDR showed not only inferior hardness, but also a significant reduction in SS.

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate postoperative pain (POP) following root canal filling (RCF) with gutta-percha/bioceramic sealer (BCS) vs. gutta-percha/traditional sealer (TS) techniques. Electronic databases were searched for randomized trials. Subgroup analyses were performed for analgesic intake, flare-ups, postoperative time (24/48 h), pulp status, and retreatment. The search yielded 682 records, and nine studies were selected. BCS was associated with significantly lower POP vs. TS at 24 h (P = 0.04) and 48 h (P = 0.0005). In addition, non-significant trends favoring BCS for analgesic intake at 24 h (P = 0.14), flare-ups (P = 0.24) and obturation techniques at 24 h (P = 0.41) and 48 h (P = 0.33), non-significant trends for lower POP with TS vs. BCS 24 h and 48 h in vital teeth (P = 0.50, P = 0.18, respectively), and for lower POP with BCS vs. TS in non-vital teeth at 24 h and 48 h (P = 0.16, P = 0.84, respectively). POP was numerically lower with TS vs. BCS at 24 h (P = 0.65) and 48 h after retreatment (P = 0.59). Moreover, POP did not vary between fillers when the treatment was over single (P = 0.28) or multiple visits (P = 0.50). BCS was associated with significantly lower short-term POP, and with a trend for lower analgesic intake and flare-up incidence, as compared to TS.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the fatigue to cyclic and static resistance of indirect restorations with different preparation designs made either of lithium disilicate (LS) or polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN). Eighty-four (n = 84) molars were chosen, endodontically treated, and prepared with standardized MOD cavities. The molars were randomly divided into 6 study groups (n = 14) taking into account the “preparation design’’ (occlusal veneer with 1.2 mm occlusal thickness; overlay with 1.6 mm occlusal thickness; adhesive crown with 2 mm occlusal thickness) and the “CAD/CAM material’’ (E-max CAD, Ivoclar vivadent; Vita Enamic, Vita). A fatigue test was conducted with a chewing simulator set at 50 N for 1,500,000 cycles. Fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine with a 6 mm diameter steel sphere applied to the specimens at a constant speed of 1 mm/min. A SEM analysis before the fracture test was performed to visually analyze the tooth-restoration margins. A statistical analysis was performed with a two-way ANOVA and a post-hoc pairwise comparison was performed using the Tukey test. The two-way ANOVA test showed that both the preparation design factor (p = 0.0429) and the CAD/CAM material factor (p = 0.0002) had a significant influence on the fracture resistance of the adhesive indirect restorations. The interaction between the two variables did not show any significance (p = 0.8218). The occlusal veneer had a lower fracture resistance than the adhesive crown (p = 0.042) but not lower than the overlay preparation (p = 0.095). LS was more resistant than PICN (p = 0.002). In conclusion, in the case of endodontically treated teeth, overlay preparation seems to be a valid alternative to the traditional full crown preparation, while occlusal veneers should be avoided in restoring non-vital molars with a high loss of residual tooth structure. LS material is more resistant compared to PICN.

Today, two different types of CAD-CAM fabrication methods for complete denture bases are available besides the conventional protocols: a subtractive milling process from a prepolymerized block of polymethylmethacrylate and an additive manufacturing process that built the denture base using a light-cured liquid in a VAT-polymerization process. The aim of this study was to evaluate and to compare the accuracy and precision of denture prosthetic bases made with subtractive and additive manufacturing technologies and to compare them with a denture base with the conventional method in muffle. From the results obtained, 3D printing dentures show a statistically significant higher accuracy than milled prosthetic bases. Milled prosthetic bases have similar accuracy than conventional fabricated dentures.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the external marginal gap variation with a 3D quantitative method and the residual fracture resistance after cyclic fatigue in endodontically treated molars restored with overlays of different materials, with and without fiber posts-supported buildups. Forty-eight human maxillary molars were selected, endodontically treated, prepared with standardized MOD cavities and randomly allocated into 6 study groups considering the “core strategy” (build-up with composite resin; build-up with composite resin supported by a fiber post); and the “restorative material” of the indirect adhesive overlay (GrandioBlocks, Voco; Cerasmart, GC; CeltraDuo, Dentsply). All procedures were executed according with manufacturers guidelines. Micro-CT analysis prior and after cyclic fatigue were executed, followed by scanning electron microscope analysis and fracture resistance test. The Two-Way ANOVA analysis showed that interfacial gap progression was significantly influenced by the “core strategy” (p < 0.01) but not of “restorative material” (p = 0.59). Concerning fracture resistance, “restorative material” was statistically significant (p < 0.01), while “core strategy” (p = 0.63) and the interaction (p = 0.84) were not. In conclusion, the fiber post presence within the build-up promoted a lower interfacial gap opening after fatigue, evaluated through micro-CT scans. In terms of fracture resistance, teeth restored with Cerasmart and Celtra Duo were statistically similar, but superior to GrandioBlocks.