The goals of this research are: (1) to compare the survival and prosthetic success of metal-ceramic 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported fixed dental prostheses; (2) to evaluate the influence of several risk factors on the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FPDs). A total of 68 patients with posterior short edentulous spaces (mean age 61.00 ± 1.325 years), were divided into two groups: 3-unit tooth-supported FPDs (40 patients; 52 FPD; mean follow-up 10.27 ± 0.496 years) and 3-unit implant-supported FPDs (28 patients; 32 FPD; mean follow-up 8.656 ± 0.718 years). Pearson-chi tests were used to highlight the risk factors for the prosthetic success of tooth- and implant-supported FPDs and multivariate analysis was used to determine significant risk predictors for the prosthetic success of the tooth-supported FPDs. The survival rates of 3-unit tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs were 100% and 87.5%, respectively, while the prosthetic success was 69.25% and 68.75%, respectively. The prosthetic success of tooth-supported FPDs was significantly higher for patients older than 60 years (83.3%) vs. 40–60 years old (57.1%) (p = 0.041). Periodontal disease history decreased the prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs when compared with the absence of periodontal history (45.5% vs. 86.7%, p = 0.001; 33.3% vs. 90%, p = 0.002). The prosthetic success of 3-unit tooth- vs. implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene in our study. In conclusion, similar rates of prosthetic success were recorded for both types of FPDs. In our study, prosthetic success of tooth- versus implant-supported FPDs was not significantly influenced by gender, location, smoking, or oral hygiene; however, history of periodontal disease is a significant negative predictor of success in both groups when compared with patients without periodontal history.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of advanced platelet-rich fibrin (A-PRF+) tissue regeneration therapy on clinical periodontal parameters in non-smokers and smoker patients. The anticipated biological mechanisms of A-PRF+ include stimulating angiogenesis, thereby promoting the formation of new blood vessels, which is essential for tissue healing. Additionally, A-PRF+ harnesses the regenerative properties of platelet-rich fibrin, contributing to the repair and regeneration of periodontal tissues. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 55 patients, divided into two groups: non-smoker patients (n = 29) and smoker patients (n = 26). A single operator conducted the surgical procedure. Following the administration of local anesthesia with articaine 4% with adrenaline 1:100,000 precise intracrevicular incisions were made, extending towards the adjacent teeth, until the interproximal spaces, with meticulous attention to conserving the interdental gingival tissue to the greatest extent possible. Extended, full-thickness vestibular and oral flaps were carefully lifted, and all granulation tissue was meticulously removed from the defect without altering the bone contour. After debridement of the defects, A-PRF+ was applied. BOP (bleeding on probing), PI (plaque index), CAL (clinical attachment loss), and probing depth (PD) were determined at baseline and six months post-surgery. Results: Significant reductions were observed in PD and CAL after six months. In the non-smokers group, PD decreased from 7.0 ± 1.0 mm to 3.1 ± 0.1 mm (p < 0.001), while in the smokers group, PD decreased from 6.9 ± 1.1 mm to 3.9 ± 0.3 mm (p < 0.001). CAL decreased in the non-smokers group from 5.8 ± 0.7 mm to 2.6 ± 0.2 mm and from 5.7 ± 0.9 mm to 3.2 ± 0.2 mm (p < 0.001) in smokers. Notably, the reductions in CAL and PD were statistically more significant in the non-smokers group. Conclusions: Even though the clinical periodontal improvements were considerable in smoker patients, they did not reach the level observed in non-smoker patients.

The goals of this research were to determine the influence of several factors on implants’ biological and technical complications in posterior fixed implant prosthetic therapy. Materials and methods: The study group consisted of 67 edentulous patients (mean age: 63.88 ± 11.709 yrs; 20 males, 47 females) with implant prosthetic therapy for posterior edentulism. A total of 76 implant-supported fixed partial dentures (IP-FPDs) and 178 implants were assessed using clinical and paraclinical assessments. Risk factors for biological complications (peri-implantitis) and technical complications were determined by using the Pearson Chi-squared test and multivariate analysis. Results: The implant success (the absence of biological and mechanical/technical complications) was 66.30%. The prevalence of biological complications was 13.5%. The prevalence of technical complications was 28.70%. Variables that were associated with a higher risk of peri-implantitis were poor oral hygiene and bruxism. In univariate analysis, poor oral hygiene increased the risk of peri-implantitis 5.778 times and bruxism 5.875 times. Variables that were associated with a higher risk of mechanical/technical complications were age group > 60 yrs, smoking, history of periodontal disease, and bruxism. In univariate analysis, the risk of technical complications increased 4.14 times for patients in the age group > 60 years (vs. age group 40–60 years) and 20.5 times for patients with bruxism. Bruxism and smoking were significant predictors of mechanical/technical complications in the multivariate model. Conclusions: In univariate models, patients with poor oral hygiene and bruxism have an increased risk of peri-implantitis. In multivariate models, we did not identify significant predictors of peri-implantitis. Age group > 60 yrs, smoking, history of periodontal disease, bone grafting, and bruxism are risk factors for the increase in the mechanical/technical complication rate. In the multivariate model, smoking and bruxism are significant predictors of the mechanical/technical complications.

In terms of production technology, metal–ceramic systems for dental restorations comply with a concrete algorithm, the efficiency of which is always dependent on the applications for which they are intended. The first stage involves obtaining metal support, followed by firing the ceramic on the surface of the metal to meet the list of functional and aesthetic requirements of a future restoration. The compatibility of the two materials—the metal component and the ceramic component—must be ensured in several respects: chemical compatibility, thermo–chemical compatibility, and mechanical compatibility. Thus, there is a need to simulate the thermal behavior of the metal–ceramic couple in its processing to achieve appropriate dental prostheses. In this study, three types of Co–Cr metal frames were manufactured using three different production technologies: conventional casting, milling (CAM), and selective laser melting (SLM). Composition analyses, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and microstructural analyses of the metal–ceramic interface for each type of production technology, as well as the determination of the hardness and the thermal expansion coefficients of experimental materials and three-point bending tests, were carried out in this study. Considering all these aspects, we demonstrated the influence of the technology of producing the metallic part of the metal–ceramic bonding process in dental prostheses.

Considered as one of the most common traumatic injuries of the maxillofacial region, mandibular fractures remain among the complex causes of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs). Due to the complexity of the temporomandibular joint, the management of TMDs represents a challenge in real-life practice; although many treatment modalities have already been proposed, ranging from conservative options to open surgical procedures, a consensus is still lacking in many aspects. Furthermore, despite continuous improvement of the management of mandible fractures, the duration of immobilization and temporary disability is not reduced, and the incidence of complications remains high. The aim of the present study is to (i) review anatomophysiological components of temporomandibular joint; (ii) review concepts of temporomandibular joint fractures; and (iii) describe methods of the recovery of the temporomandibular joint after mandibular fracture immobilization.

This study aimed to test whether alveolar bone gain (width and osteodensity) in mandible implant sites, augmented by the screw-guided bone regeneration (S-GBR) technique and the porcine-derived xenograft, differ from that of the mandible sites reconstructed with S-GBR and the bovine-derived xenograft. Materials and method. A total of 42 edentulous patients (mean age 54.60 ± 14.90) were randomly divided into a test group (S-GBR + porcine-derived xenograft) and a control group (S-GBR + bovine-derived xenograft). The immediate implants were placed simultaneously with grafting procedures. The implant site width was measured before teeth extractions and 6 months after the augmentation procedures. Osteodensity bone values were evaluated immediately after the implant placement and at 6 months follow-up. The CBCT sections and Sidexis XG/DVT (Densply/Sirona) software were used to evaluate the changes of the width in the augmented alveolar bone. The NNT Viewer/CT (NewTom) software was used to record the osteodensity changes. Statistical comparisons between the groups were performed by the Mann–Whitney and t-tests (significance level p < 0.05). Results. The mean values of the bone gain at 6 months follow-up (control group vs. test group) were as follows: width (4.107 mm vs. 4.1624 mm); osteodensity (276.83 HU vs. 254.24 HU). The statistical analysis found the absence of statistically significant differences between the two groups regarding the bone gain (width and osteodensity) at 6 months after the augmentation and the immediate implant placement. Conclusions. The horizontal bone and osteodensity gains in the porcine-derived group were similar and without significant statistical differences when compared with the implant sites reconstructed with the bovine-derived xenografts group at 6 months postoperatively. The reconstruction of the mandibular alveolar bone by the S-GBR technique and the porcine-derived xenografts is a valid bone regeneration strategy for edentulous patients with moderate/severe horizontal resorption of the mandibular alveolar bone.