Flexural strength (FS) and translucency (Contrast Ratio-CR) of three different factory crystallized silica-based glass ceramics, Celtra Duo (CD), N!ce (NI) and Li-Si Block, a lithium disilicate, IPS e.max CAD (LD), and a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic, Empress CAD (EM), in two different translucencies (HT and LT) for use in chairside dental restorations have been compared. CAD blocks of the materials were cut into beams and tiles and processed following manufacturers’ instructions. The beams were tested (3-PBT) to determine flexural strength, Weibull characteristic strength, and Weibull modulus; and tiles were tested to determine CR. All data were statistically analyzed. In addition, SEM analysis of the materials was performed. Differences in flexural strength (FS) and translucency (CR) between the materials were found to be statistically significant. FS decreased as follows (MPa): LDHT 350.88 ± 19.77 (a) = LDLT 343.57 ± 18.48 (a) > LSLT 202.15 ± 17.41 (b) = LSHT 196.93 ± 8.87 > NIHT 186.69 ± 13.06 (c) = CDLT 184.73 ± 13.63 (c) = CDHT 174.15 ± 21.76 (c) = NILT 172.12 ± 11.98 (c) > EMHT 131.16 ± 13.33 (e) = EMLT 127.65 ± 11.09. CR decreased as follows (mean ± sd): CDLT 74.1 ± 1.1 (a); LSLT 74.0 ± 1.1 (ab); NILT 73.3 ± 0.8 (ab); EMLT 73.0 ± 1.5 (ab); NIHT 72.4 ± 1.0 (bc); LDLT 71.3 ± 1.1 (bc); LTHT 65.2 ± 0.9 (de); LSHT 63.8 ± 1.1 (def); EMHT 636 ± 1.2 (ef); CDHT 62.2 ± 0.8 (f). Our findings show that factory-crystallized lithium silicate glass ceramics fulfill ISO standards for Classes 1 and 2. Therefore, they can be considered viable alternatives to produce single-unit restorations with a chairside procedure not requiring thermal treatment.

The aim of this in-vivo study was to compare total protein and four key salivary proteins present in the acquired enamel pellicle (AEP) on eroded and non-eroded surfaces in participants with erosive tooth wear. Participants with erosive tooth wear of dietary non-intrinsic origin, present on the occlusal surfaces of the lower first molars and an unaffected posterior occlusal surface in the same quadrant were recruited from restorative dental clinics at King’s College London Dental Institute (n = 29, REC ref 14/EM/1171). Following removal of the salivary film, AEP samples were collected from the eroded occlusal surfaces (EP, n = 29) and the non-eroded occlusal surfaces (NP, n = 29) using 0.5% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) soaked filter papers. Total protein concentration was analysed using bicinchoninic acid assay (BCA). Protein fractions were separated using SDS-PAGE and immunoblotted against: mucin5b, albumin, carbonic anhydrase VI (CA VI) and statherin antibodies. Amounts were quantified using ImageLab software against purified protein standards of known concentration. ANOVA followed by paired t-test and Wilcoxon’s matched-pair signed-rank test were used to test statistical significance. The difference was considered to be significant at a P value < 0.05. The total protein on eroded surfaces was significantly lower compared to the total protein on non-eroded surfaces [0.41mg/mL (0.04) and 0.61 mg/mL (0.11)] respectively (p< 0.05). The median (min, max) amount of statherin was also significantly lower on eroded occlusal surfaces [84.1 (20.0, 221.8) ng] compared to AEP from non-eroded teeth in the same subjects [97.1(30.0, 755.6) ng] (p = 0.002). No statistical differences were observed for mucin 5b, albumin or CA VI. The total protein and statherin in the in-vivo AEP were different between eroded and non-eroded tooth surfaces of the same patient.

Telemedicine technologies allow distribution of health-related services and information and can include electronic and telecommunication technologies, remote patient and clinician contact, referral and prescribing, patient education, and monitoring. This systematic review aimed to evaluate publications on the perceptions and management of chronic medical conditions using telehealth remote consultations by primary healthcare professionals between April 2020 and December 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Electronic databases, including Cinhal, PubMed, Science Direct, and ProQuest were searched to extract qualitative studies relevant to the topic. Inclusion criteria were developed based on the Population, Exposure, and Outcomes scoping framework. The target population was healthcare professionals working in primary care settings. Included studies encompassed various types of telemedicine, such as synchronous telemedicine, video conferencing, telephone conversations, and smart devices. Eight studies were included. Synchronous telemedicine was highly effective in ensuring the continuity of care and treatment, providing patients with convenience, improved access to treatment, and earlier disease management. Video conferencing and telephone consultations were the most common methods used. Challenges included concerns about patient privacy, technology literacy, and acceptance. Telemedicine was commended for its ability to provide access to immediate expert medical advice and eliminate the need for long-distance travel, contributing to increased patient compliance. Synchronous telemedicine is a promising solution for managing chronic conditions during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, offering benefits to patients and healthcare professionals. To maximize its potential, concerns regarding patient privacy, confidentiality, and technology literacy need to be addressed. Proper legislation and regulations are required for long-term success of telemedicine, making it a valuable component of healthcare systems.

Amid chairside CAD/CAM materials, the use of lithium-based silicate glass–ceramics (LSGC) has been steadily increasing. This review aims to report on the translucency of these materials and the variables used to measure it. An electronic search was performed within the PubMed database within the period between 2 June 2011 and 11 September 2022. English-language papers investigating the translucency of IPS e.max CAD, Celtra Duo, Suprinity PC, Initial LiSi Block, Amber Mill, N!ce, and CEREC Tessera LSGC CAD/blocks were included in the search strategy. After an initial retrieval of 160 papers, the application of exclusion criteria, and the screening of abstracts and then of full texts, 33 papers were included in the study. The retrieved materials, with different degrees of translucency (LT, HT), were IPS e.max CAD (n = 33), Suprinity PC (n = 8), and Celtra Duo (n = 1). Concerning the examined colors, the most used was A2 (n = 20), followed by A1 (n = 8) and A3 (n = 2). The translucency parameter (TP) was the most used method (n = 30) with respect to the contrast ratio (CR) (n = 11) to assess translucency. Five papers measured both. Several specimens’ thicknesses (0.5–4 mm) were investigated, with 1 mm (n = 23) being the most frequently analyzed. While a general tendency could be identified, conflicting results among different papers were reported.

Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is a self-adhesive dental restorative material composed of a polyacrylic acid liquid and fluoro-aluminosilicate glass powder. It is commonly used for cementation during dental restoration. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature regarding the clinical performance of GIC in load-bearing dental restorations. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in EBSCO, PubMed, Embrace, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the search, and a broad search technique was used, where inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. After a thorough evaluation, 12 RCTs were extensively reviewed, and whether GIC is suitable for load-bearing restorations was determined. Significant variations in staining surface or margin, color match, translucency, esthetic anatomical form, retention, material fracture, marginal adaptation, surface luster, occlusal contour, wear, and approximal anatomical form indicated the unsuitability of GIC. By contrast, significance differences in patient view and periodontal response indicated that GIC is suitable. No significant differences in postoperative sensitivity, recurrence of caries, or tooth integrity were observed. Nevertheless, the results of the review demonstrated that the clinical performance of GIC is comparable to that of traditional restorative materials with regard to the parameters analyzed. GIC is a suitable restorative material for load-bearing restorations regarding surface margin, esthetic anatomical form, material retention and fracture, marginal adaptation, occlusal contour, wear, and approximal anatomical form. It reduces other parameters, such as postoperative sensitivity, recurrence of caries, and tooth integrity.