Periodontal health plays an important role in the longevity of prosthodontic restorations. The issues of comparative assessment of prosthetic constructions are complicated and not fully understood. The aim of this article is to review and present the current knowledge regarding the various technical, clinical, and molecular aspects of different prosthetic biomaterials and highlight the interactions between periodontal health and prosthetic restorations. Articles on periodontal health and fixed dental prostheses were searched using the keywords “zirconium”, “CAD/CAM”, “dental ceramics”, “metal–ceramics”, “margin fit”, “crown”, “fixed dental prostheses”, “periodontium”, and “margin gap” in PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Science Direct. Further search criteria included being published in English, and between January 1981 and September 2021. Then, relevant articles were selected, included, and critically analyzed in this review. The margin of discrepancy results in the enhanced accumulation of dental biofilm, microleakage, hypersensitivity, margin discoloration, increased gingival crevicular fluid flow (GCF), recurrent caries, pulp infection and, lastly, periodontal lesion and bone loss, which can lead to the failure of prosthetic treatment. Before starting prosthetic treatment, the condition of the periodontal tissues should be assessed for their oral hygiene status, and gingival and periodontal conditions. Zirconium-based restorations made from computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology provide better results, in terms of marginal fit, inflammation reduction, maintenance, and the restoration of periodontal health and oral hygiene, compared to constructions made by conventional methods, and from other alloys. Compared to subgingival margins, supragingival margins offer better oral hygiene, which can be maintained and does not lead to secondary caries or periodontal disease.

Tooth root resorption is multifactorial, leading to progressive destruction and eventual loss of tooth root dentin and cement. There are internal and external types of root resorption, each having its variety. The etiology and pathogenesis of tooth root resorption are poorly understood, and the most significant etiological factors are trauma, pulpal infection, tooth bleaching, and orthodontic treatment. Tooth root resorption is primarily asymptomatic; thus, it is revealed accidentally by radiographic examination. Progressive clinical manifestations are pain, tooth discoloration, tooth mobility, and other conditions. Awareness of the causes and risk factors allowing tooth root resorption, and regular radiographic examination, in case of necessity, make it possible to reveal resorption at an early stage and to prevent its further development. Thus, the aim of this study is to present etiopathogenesis, a clinical course, and diagnostic peculiarities of internal and external types of tooth root resorption, enabling practicing dentists to timely diagnose root resorption and take appropriate measures to avoid further complications. Within the limitation of this review, even though the etiopathogenesis of tooth root resorption is yet not fully understood, it is suggested that the etiological factors fall into two groups (endogenic and exogenic) to enhance further understanding of the possible causes and mechanisms of root resorption and allow practitioners to monitor high-risk patients and make timely diagnoses. Moreover, radiographic examination and CBCT are indispensable for the diagnosis of root resorption.

Purpose: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the survival rate, biological complications, technical complications, and clinical behavior of single crowns supported by teeth made up in monolithic zirconia with CAD/CAM technology.Study selection: An extensive electronic search was conducted through Medline/PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. Additional manual search was performed on the references of included articles to identify relevant publications. Two reviewers independently performed the selection and electronic and manual search.Results: From nine articles included, there was a total of 594 participants and 1657 single-tooth restorations with a mean exposure time of 1.07 years, and follow-up period between 0.3 and 2.1 years. All studies showed a moderate level of quality, with a consequent moderate possibility of associated bias, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), with survival rate (SR) ranging between 91% to 100%. Bleeding on probing (BOP) were reported with an average value of 29.12%. Marginal integrity showed high success rate values for the observation periods, except for one that included patients with bruxism which obtained a SR of 31.60%. Failures and/or fractures, mostly total and requiring replacement, were observed in three studies. Linear regression showed that there was no statistical correlation between survival rate and type of cementation and the average years of follow-up (p=0.730 e p=0.454). There was high heterogeneity between studies (I2 = 93.74% and Q = 79.672).Conclusions: Within the limitation of this study, monolithic zirconia might be considered as a possible option for restoring single crowns, especially in the posterior zone.

This review aimed to identify newly discovered bacteria from individuals with periodontal/peri-implant diseases and organize them into new clusters (GF-MoR complexes) to update Socransky’s complexes (1998). For methodological development, the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) strategy was used for the focus question construction: “In patients with periodontal and/or peri-implant disease, what bacteria (microorganisms) were detected through laboratory assays?” The search strategy was applied to PubMed/MEDLINE, PubMed Central, and Embase. The search key terms, combined with Boolean markers, were (1) bacteria, (2) microbiome, (3) microorganisms, (4) biofilm, (5) niche, (6) native bacteria, (7) gingivitis), (8) periodontitis, (9) peri-implant mucositis, and (10) peri-implantitis. The search was restricted to the period 1998–2024 and the English language. The bacteria groups in the oral cavity obtained/found were retrieved and included in the GF-MoR complexes, which were based on the disease/condition, presenting six groups: (1) health, (2) gingivitis, (3) peri-implant mucositis, (4) periodontitis, (5) peri-implantitis, and (6) necrotizing and molar–incisor (M-O) pattern periodontitis. The percentual found per group refers to the number of times a specific bacterium was found to be associated with a particular disease. A total of 381 articles were found: 162 articles were eligible for full-text reading (k = 0.92). Of these articles, nine were excluded with justification, and 153 were included in this review (k = 0.98). Most of the studies reported results for the health condition, periodontitis, and peri-implantitis (3 out of 6 GF-MoR clusters), limiting the number of bacteria found in the other groups. Therefore, it became essential to understand that bacterial colonization is a dynamic process, and the bacteria present in one group could also be present in others, such as those observed with the bacteria found in all groups (Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannarela forsythia, Treponema denticola, and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans) (GF-MoR’s red triangle). The second most observed bacteria were grouped in GF-MoR’s blue triangle: Porphyromonas spp., Prevotela spp., and Treponema spp., which were present in five of the six groups. The third most detected bacteria were clustered in the grey polygon (GF-MoR’s grey polygon): Fusobacterium nucleatum, Prevotella intermedia, Campylobacter rectus, and Eikenella corrodens. These three geometric shapes had the most relevant bacteria to periodontal and peri-implant diseases. Specifically, per group, GF-MoR’s health group had 58 species; GF-MoR’s gingivitis group presented 16 bacteria; GF-MoR’s peri-implant mucositis included 17 bacteria; GF-MoR’s periodontitis group had 101 different bacteria; GF-MoR’s peri-implantitis presented 61 bacteria; and the last group was a combination of necrotizing diseases and molar–incisor (M-I) pattern periodontitis, with seven bacteria. After observing the top seven bacteria of all groups, all of them were found to be gram-negative. Groups 4 and 5 (periodontitis and peri-implantitis) presented the same top seven bacteria. For the first time in the literature, GF-MoR’s complexes were presented, gathering bacteria data according to the condition found and including more bacteria than in Socransky’s complexes. Based on this understanding, this study could drive future research into treatment options for periodontal and peri-implant diseases, guiding future studies and collaborations to prevent and worsen systemic conditions. Moreover, it permits the debate about the evolution of bacterial clusters.

Background: Since the leucocyte-platelet rich fibrin (L-PRF) was published in 2001, many studies have been developed, analyzing its properties, and also verifying new possibilities to improve it. Thereby, it emerges the advanced-platelet rich fibrin (A-PRF) with a protocol that optimizes the properties obtained by the L-PRF. Nonetheless, there is a gap in the literature to landmark the evolutive process concerning the mechanical properties in specific the resistance to tensile strength which consequently may influence the time for membrane degradation. Thus, this study had the goal to compare the resistance to the traction of membranes produced with the original L-PRF and A-PRF protocols, being the first to this direct comparison.Findings: The harvest of blood from a healthy single person, with no history of anticoagulant usage. We performed the protocols described in the literature, within a total of 13 membranes produced for each protocol (n= 26). Afterward, the membranes were prepared and submitted to a traction test assessing the maximal and the average traction achieved for each membrane. The data were analyzed statistically using the unpairedttest. Regarding average traction, A-PRF obtained a value of 0.0288 N mm⁻²and L-PRF 0.0192 N mm⁻²(p< 0.05 using unpairedttest). For maximal traction, A-PRF obtained 0.0752 N mm⁻²and L-PRF 0.0425 N mm⁻²(p< 0.05 using unpairedttest).Conclusion: With this study, it was possible to conclude that indeed A-PRF has a significative higher maximal traction score and higher average traction compared to L-PRF, indicating that it had a higher resistance when two opposing forces are applied.

Objectives: This study aimed to compare clinical results between titanium (Ti), zirconia (Zr), or titanium–zirconium (TZ) dental implants and to analyze survival rate (SR), bleeding on probing (BoP), marginal bone loss (MBL), and/or probing depth (PD). Data source: Manual and electronic searches were conducted (PubMed and Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the outcomes of at least two implant types (control and test group) within the same study. The focused question was determined according to the PICOT strategy. Seven studies were included out of 202 research studies initially found. The follow-up periods ranged from 12 to 80 months, and the mean age was from 43.3 to 65.8 years old. The SR for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants ranged from 92.6% to 100%, 95.8% to 100%, and 87.5% to 91.25%, respectively; MBL for Ti, TZ, and Zr implants varied from −1.17 mm to −0.125 mm for Ti, −0.6 mm to −0.32 mm for TZ, and −0.25 mm to −1.38 mm for Zr. Studies showed a low incidence of mucositis and peri-implantitis; however, BoP for Zr was 16.43%, Ti ranged between 10% and 20%, and TZ from 10% to 13.8%. PD for Ti ranged from 1.6 mm to 3.05 mm, TZ was 3.12 mm (only one study), and Zr ranged from 2.21 mm to 2.6 mm. Conclusion: All three types of implants showed similar tissue behavior. However, the TZ group had better results when compared with Ti and Zr for SR, MBL, and BoP, except for PD. Furthermore, the worst SR was found in the Zr implants group.