Diagnosis is a key aspect in endodontic treatment, in a decade where invasive interventions are misapprehended as social tendency instead of medical necessity. All diagnostic facets should be considered before intending the operative phase. Intraoral endodontic radiology-based diagnosis has been shown to be limited. Periapical X-ray is the most used endodontic imaging, yet it does not provide high accuracy. Traditionally, dentists have been trained to diagnose a cyst by certain aspects (size, shape and appearance); hence, an assumption that teeth are affected by “periapical cyst” were subjected to unnecessary extraction or apicoectomy. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the publications that relate the histological diagnosis of a periapical lesion (considered the gold standard) to intraoral X-ray investigation. Ovid Medline, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Mendeley and Scopus were searched for English-language studies comparing periapical diagnosis obtained by using two techniques (histopathology and X-ray). Sixteen articles were included for the final analysis (qualitative and quantitative evaluation) out of which only two supported the statement that periapical diagnosis can be coherently assessed through periapical imaging. Although there is not enough evidence to deliver a definitive conclusion, there are many publications that refute the diagnosis of a cyst via periapical X-ray.

(1) Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit of combining chlorhexidine with the mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis. (2) Methods: Articles from 2016 to 2021 included in the PubMed and Scopus databases were analyzed, following the PICOS criteria and the randomized controlled study model that used chlorhexidine in various forms in the treatment of peri-mucositis. According to the established criteria, a limited number of studies were selected. These studies had as their criteria of evaluation for the effectiveness of chlorhexidine, plaque indices, bleeding indices and depth probing indices. Chlorhexidine has been used after mechanical debridement as a solution, with different concentrations of 0.06%/0.12%/0.2% alone or in a concentration of 0.03%, in combination with 0.05% cetylpyridinium chloride, as well as in the form of a gel with a concentration of 0.2%. (3) Results: The results were assessed to a placebo or other substances, and showed a significant reduction in the indices with a follow-up period ranging from 3 months to 1 year. (4) Conclusions: The association of chlorhexidine with the mechanical treatment of peri-implant mucositis has a role in reducing inflammation, although a complete remission was not obtained in all cases, and the results were not statistically significantly different from the use of other antiseptics.

The aim of this study was to compare fracture resistance of teeth presenting medium-sized mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities using different base materials. Thirty-six extracted molars were immersed for 48 h in saline solution (0.1% thymol at 4 °C) and divided into six groups. In group A, the molars were untouched, and in group B, cavities were prepared, but not filled. In group C, we used zinc polycarboxylate cement, in group D—conventional glass ionomer cement, in group E—resin modified glass ionomer cement, and in group F—flow composite. Fracture resistance was tested using a universal loading machine (Lloyd Instruments) with a maximum force of 5 kN and a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min; we used NEXYGEN Data Analysis Software and ANOVA Method (p < 0.05). The smallest load that determined the sample failure was 2780 N for Group A, 865 N for Group B, 1210 N for Group C, 1340 N for Group D, 1630 N for Group E and 1742 N for Group F. The highest loads were 3050 N (A), 1040 N (B), 1430 N (C), 1500 N (D), 1790 N (E), and 3320 N (F), the mean values being 2902 ± 114 N (A), 972 ± 65 N (B), 1339 ± 84 N (C), 1415 ± 67 N (D), 1712 ± 62 N (E), and 2334 ± 662 N (F). A p = 0.000195 shows a statistically significant difference between groups C, D, E and F. For medium sized mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities, the best base material regarding fracture resistance was flow composite, followed by glass ionomer modified with resin, conventional glass ionomer cement and zinc polycarboxylate cement. It can be concluded that light-cured base materials are a better option for the analyzed use case, one of the possible reasons being their compatibility with the final restoration material, also light-cured.

Background. Despite dentistry’s alarmingly high energy use, plastic waste, and travel emissions, research on Romanian dental students’ sustainability awareness is absent. This study aimed to assess their knowledge of the environmental impact of dental materials and practices, hypothesizing that early exposure to sustainability education would benefit preclinical students most. Materials and Methods. A cross-sectional survey using a form questionnaire with 15 items was conducted on 1800 dental students at Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania, for one week in March 2022. The questionnaire, consisting of socio-demographics, students’ perspectives on sustainability in dentistry, and personal sustainability, was analyzed using SPSS 26. Data analysis included the Shapiro–Wilk test for normality, Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables, the Mann–Whitney U test for non-parametric quantitative comparisons, and Z-tests with Bonferroni correction for contingency tables. Results. A response rate of 26.06% was achieved, with 469 participants. The majority (51.1%), particularly males (66.1%), perceived sustainability as promoting durability. The most common definition of sustainability (33.8%) was related to environmental protection, with significantly higher agreement among female students (39.4%) (p = 0.001). While 49.3% of participants identified single-use plastics in patient care as having the greatest environmental impact in dental practices, 39.2% of female students, primarily from clinical study years (50%), ranked patient paperwork and records as the most significant factor (p = 0.031). The highest-carbon-footprint dental procedures were considered to be amalgam and composite fillings (50.7%), with clinical year students indicating this as the most relevant issue (62.8% vs. 47.7%) (p = 0.011). Students aged 25–30 were more actively engaged in sustainability initiatives compared to the younger group (p = 0.005), while all students over 30 identified scaling and polishing as the most impactful procedure (p < 0.001). A majority of students supported future university sustainability initiatives (62.7%) and an elective course on sustainability in dentistry (65%). Female students showed significantly greater interest than male students in both initiatives (66.3% vs. 52.7%, p = 0.003 and 70.8% vs. 49.6%, p < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions. Greater awareness of sustainability was found in preclinical-year dental students and among female students, with knowledge gaps in clinical-year students, particularly regarding the environmental impact of dental practices and materials. Introducing sustainability courses could better prepare future dentists for sustainable practices in dentistry. Research collaborations and curriculum reforms to further promote sustainability would also be beneficial.

Background: Distal surface caries (DSC) has been associated with partially erupted impacted third molars. The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of DSC between populations that had undergone different third molar management strategies. Methods: Radiographs that had been taken during routine examinations of 1012, 251 and 250 patients in Manchester, Bucharest and Amsterdam, respectively, were evaluated. The following parameters were assessed: the state of the distal surface in the second mandibular molar, loss of periodontal support, impaction type of the third molar, contact point localization, and patients’ genders, ages and their cumulative history of dental health. Results: The rate of DSC in the second mandibular molar was 63.9%, 19.9% and 26.0% in the Manchester, Bucharest and Amsterdam populations, respectively. A loss of lamina dura of ≥2 mm, increased percentages of decayed, missing or filled teeth and male gender were risk factors in all three populations. All assessed parameters apart from the site of the mandible reached statistical significance in the Manchester sample (p < 0.001). The DSC rate was cumulative with increasing age in the Manchester population, in which third molars were strategically retained. Conclusions: The UK population, treated according to strict guidelines that limit the removal of third molars, had a statistically significant higher DSC prevalence rate (p < 0.001) than the Romanian or Dutch populations. The active surgical management of mandibular third molars seems to have the potential to reduce the DSC rate in the adjacent second molar.

The aim of this study was to compare the interproximal contact tightness of lateral teeth after restoring adjacent proximal walls with four types of direct adherent biomaterials. Distal and mesial boxes were prepared on 160 artificial right first and second upper molars. Each set of 40 pairs of boxes was restored using one bulk biomaterial: Equia Forte Fil HT (GC), Cention^® Forte (IVOCLAR VIVADENT), Admira Fusion x-tra (VOCO), or 3M^TMFiltek^TM One Bulk Fill. The mean difference in the passing-through force varied from sound to restored surfaces immediately after application, as well as at 7 and 14 days after: Equia Forte Fil HT—4.07 ± 0.01, 4.08 ± 0.01, and 4.11 ± 0.01; Cention^® Forte—3.30 ± 0.01, 3.50 ± 0.01, and 3.56 ± 0.01; Admira Fusion x-tra—4.10 ± 0.01, 4.13 ± 0.01, and 4.13 ± 0.01; 3M^TMFiltek^TM One Bulk Fill—4.08 ± 0.01, 4.09 ± 0.01, and 4.07 ± 0.01 (p < 0.05). The passing-through force of the restored contact areas showed significantly higher values when compared to those for the sound surfaces, and among them, all biomaterials presented similar values, except for Cention^® Forte. The potential clinical relevance of this study relates to better knowing the most appropriate restorative material for large proximal caries on adjacent surfaces from the outset of the treatment protocol.