ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#Loss of the dental and paradental tissues resulting from trauma, caries or from systemic diseasesconsidered as one of the most significant and frequent clinical problem to the healthcare professionals. Great attempts havebeen implemented to recreate functionally, healthy dental and paradental tissues in order to substitute dead and diseasedtissues resulting from secondary trauma of car accidents, congenital malformations of cleft lip and palate or due to acquireddiseases such as cancer and periodontal involvements.METHOD: An extensive literature search has been done on PubMed database from 2010 to 2019 about the challenges ofengineering a biomimetic tooth (BioTooth) regarding basic biology of the tooth and its supporting structures, strategies,and different techniques of obtaining biological substitutes for dental tissue engineering. @*RESULTS@#It has been found that great challenges need to be considered before engineering biomimetic individual parts of thetooth such as enamel, dentin-pulp complex and periodontium. In addition, two approaches have been adopted to engineer aBioTooth.The first one was to engineer a BioTooth as an individual unit and the other was to engineer a BioToothwith its supporting structures. @*CONCLUSION@#Engineering of BioTooth with its supporting structures thought to be in the future will replace the traditionaland conventional treatment modalities in the field of dentistry. To accomplish this goal, different cell lines and growthfactors with a variety of scaffolds at the nano-scale level are now in use. Recent researches in this area of interest arededicated for this objective, both in vivo and in vitro. Despite progress in this field, there are still many challenges ahead andneed to be overcome, many of which related to the basic tooth biology and its supporting structures and some others related tothe sophisticated techniques isolating cells, fabricating the needed scaffolds and obtaining the signaling molecules.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND@#Loss of the dental and paradental tissues resulting from trauma, caries or from systemic diseasesconsidered as one of the most significant and frequent clinical problem to the healthcare professionals. Great attempts havebeen implemented to recreate functionally, healthy dental and paradental tissues in order to substitute dead and diseasedtissues resulting from secondary trauma of car accidents, congenital malformations of cleft lip and palate or due to acquireddiseases such as cancer and periodontal involvements.METHOD: An extensive literature search has been done on PubMed database from 2010 to 2019 about the challenges ofengineering a biomimetic tooth (BioTooth) regarding basic biology of the tooth and its supporting structures, strategies,and different techniques of obtaining biological substitutes for dental tissue engineering. @*RESULTS@#It has been found that great challenges need to be considered before engineering biomimetic individual parts of thetooth such as enamel, dentin-pulp complex and periodontium. In addition, two approaches have been adopted to engineer aBioTooth.The first one was to engineer a BioTooth as an individual unit and the other was to engineer a BioToothwith its supporting structures. @*CONCLUSION@#Engineering of BioTooth with its supporting structures thought to be in the future will replace the traditionaland conventional treatment modalities in the field of dentistry. To accomplish this goal, different cell lines and growthfactors with a variety of scaffolds at the nano-scale level are now in use. Recent researches in this area of interest arededicated for this objective, both in vivo and in vitro. Despite progress in this field, there are still many challenges ahead andneed to be overcome, many of which related to the basic tooth biology and its supporting structures and some others related tothe sophisticated techniques isolating cells, fabricating the needed scaffolds and obtaining the signaling molecules.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: This paper presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of preheating on the hardness of nanofilled, nanoceramic, nanohybrid, and microhybrid resin composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search of papers on MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, and EBSCOhost was performed. Only in vitro studies were included. Non-English studies, case reports, clinical trials, and review articles were excluded. A meta-analysis of the reviewed studies was conducted to quantify differences in the microhardness of the Z250 microhybrid resin composite using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. RESULTS: Only 13 studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. The meta-analysis showed that there were significant differences between the non-preheated and preheated modes for both the top and bottom surfaces of the specimens (p < 0.05). The microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the top surface in the preheated mode (78.1 ± 2.9) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (67.4 ± 4.0; p < 0.001). Moreover, the microhardness of the Z250 resin composite on the bottom surface in the preheated mode (71.8 ± 3.8) was higher than in the non-preheated mode (57.5 ± 5.7, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the results reported in the reviewed studies showed great variability, sufficient scientific evidence was found to support the hypothesis that preheating can improve the hardness of resin composites.