Systemic sclerosis is a chronic, autoimmune, multisystemic disease characterized by aberrant extracellular matrix protein deposition and extreme progressive microvasculopathy. These processes lead to damage within the skin, lungs, or gastrointestinal tract, but also to facial changes with physiognomic and functional alterations, and dental and periodontal lesions. Orofacial manifestations are common in SSc but are frequently overshadowed by systemic complications. In clinical practice, oral manifestations of SSc are suboptimally addressed, while their management is not included in the general treatment recommendations. Periodontitis is associated with autoimmune-mediated systemic diseases, including systemic sclerosis. In periodontitis, the microbial subgingival biofilm induces host-mediated inflammation with subsequent tissue damage, periodontal attachment, and bone loss. When these diseases coexist, patients experience additive damage, increasing malnutrition, and morbidity. The present review discusses the links between SSc and periodontitis, and provides a clinical guide for preventive and therapeutical approaches in the management of these patients.

The resin composite restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) still faces some drawbacks mostly related to the quality of the marginal seal. This study attempts to evaluate the adhesive capacities of two flowable and two conventional hybrid resin composite restorations of NCCLs having two types of cervical margins. Our null hypothesis assumes the same adhesive behavior of different materials. The relative composition of dental–restoration structures was also measured. Thus, restored wedge-shaped cervical cavities were realized on both the buccal and oral surfaces of extracted teeth. After immersion in dye solution, sectioning of the teeth was performed. We proposed an optical microscopy method to quantify the dye penetration along the restoration–tooth interface and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDX) to evaluate the quality of the peripheral seal. The data obtained revealed an amount of dentinal microleakage for all tested materials, despite the favorable results of the restoration peripheral seal. Therefore, data from this study failed to reject the null hypothesis. The adhesion is not influenced by the position of cervical margins. The SEM revealed occasional disruptions of the adhesive interface. EDX sustains the qualitative compositions as provided by the manufacturers. Conclusions: The four experimental composites are recommended to restore NCCLs in clinic.

Background/Objectives: In this prospective clinical follow-up study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term periodontal responses over a five-year follow-up period associated with Class II direct posterior restorations placed using two different restorative approaches. Materials and Methods: Thirty-one Class II posterior restorations in 25 patients were included. Eighteen were performed using a bulk-fill approach with Admira Fusion X-tra^® (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany), whereas thirteen used the proximal wall approach with Admira Fusion^® (VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany). Periodontal parameters, including plaque control record, gingival bleeding index, probing depth, and clinical attachment loss, were recorded at baseline and five years using standardized periodontal examination procedures. Data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA. Given the limited sample size, the statistical analyses were considered exploratory. Results: The plaque control record decreased from baseline to the five-year follow-up, with a significant overall effect of time (F = 4.789, p = 0.037), while the time × restorative approach interaction was not significant (p = 0.694). The gingival bleeding index showed a slight numerical increase over the five-year period (25.52 ± 27.20% at baseline versus 27.00 ± 26.11% at five years); however, neither the effect of time (F = 0.139, p = 0.712) nor the time × restorative approach interaction (F = 0.505, p = 0.483) was statistically significant. Probing depth and clinical attachment loss remained relatively stable throughout the observation period, with no statistically significant time or interaction effects. Overall, no statistically significant time × restorative approach interactions were observed, indicating that longitudinal changes in the evaluated periodontal parameters did not differ significantly between the restorative approaches. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this exploratory clinical study, both ormocer-based restorative protocols were not associated with detectable deterioration in the evaluated periodontal parameters over the five years of follow-up.