Jo DW, et al. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019 Apr;11(2):88-94. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.2.88

Jung JH, et al. J Adv Prosthodont. 2018 Apr;10(2):85-92. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.2.85

The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effects of intermediate ceramics on the adhesion between the zirconia core and veneer ceramics. The polished surfaces of fully sintered Y-TZP blocks received three different treatments: (1) connector (C), (2) liner (L) or (3) wash layer (W). All the treated zirconia blocks were veneered with either (a) fluorapatite glass-ceramic (E) or (b) feldspathic porcelain (V) and divided into four groups (CE, CV, LE and WV). For the control group, the testing surfaces of metal blocks were veneered with feldspathic porcelain (VM). A half of the samples in each group (n = 21) were exposed to thermocycling, while the other half of the specimens were stored at room temperature under dry conditions. All specimens were subjected to the shear test and the failed surfaces were microscopically examined. The elemental distribution at the zirconia core/veneer interface was analyzed. The specimens in Groups CE and CV exhibited significantly greater mean bond strength values than those in Groups LE and WV, respectively (p < 0.05). However, the mean bond strengths significantly decreased in the connector groups (CE and CV) after thermal cycling (p < 0.05). The elemental analysis suggested diffusion of ceramic substances into the zirconia surface. A glass-ceramic based connector is significantly more favorable to core/veneer adhesion than the other intermediate ceramics evaluated in the study. However, thermal cycling affected the bond strength at the core/veneer interface differently according to the intermediate ceramics.

The purpose of the retrospective study was to investigate the long-term result of implant-induced injury on the adjacent tooth. The subjects of this retrospective study were patients who had received implants and had tooth injury; direct invasion of root (group I), root surface contact (group II), or < 1 mm distance of the implant from the root (group III). Clinical and pathological changes were periodically examined using radiographs and intra-oral examinations. Paired t-tests and chi-square tests were used to evaluate the implant stability quotient (ISQ) of implant and tooth complications, respectively (α = 0.05). A total of 32 implants and teeth in 28 patients were observed for average 122.7 (± 31.7, minimum 86) months. Seven teeth, three of which were subsequently extracted, needed root canal treatment. Finally, 90.6% of the injured teeth remained functional. Complications were significant and varied according to the group, with group I showing higher events than the others. The ISQs increased significantly. One implant in group I resulted in osseointegration failure. The implant survival rate was 96.9%. In conclusion, it was found even when a tooth is injured by an implant, immediate extraction is unnecessary, and the osseointegration of the invading implant is also predictable.

Kim SB, et al. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016 Oct;8(5):396-403. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.5.396

Kim YK, et al. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jun;42(3):139-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.5125/jkaoms.2016.42.3.139