Prevalence of middle mesial canal using cone beam computed tomography: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The presence of middle mesial canals in mandibular molars are not commonly encountered in daily practice. However, locating and debriding such anatomical variation during the endodontic therapy is essential to avoid endodontic failure. The aim of this systematic review was to identify the overall prevalence of middle mesial canals (MMC) in mandibular molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), to assess the influence of different gender on the prevalence of MMCs in mandibular molars and to describe the MMC configurations. Methods: The review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021238523). The main electronic databases were searched until February 2022 for prevalence studies on root/canal anatomy in mandibular molars using CBCT imaging, in addition to hand-searched scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals and grey literature. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool. Egger's and Begg's tests and Pearson's chi-square test were used for statistical analysis. Results: From 523 records, 488 studies were excluded after screening the title and abstract. 35 relevant studies were included for full-text assessment and 28 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall prevalence of MMC out of the 19,256 teeth was 5.09% (95% CI: 2.894 to 7.784). The prevalence of MMC was 9.79% (95% CI: 4.296 to 17.224) in males and 13.96% (95% CI: 0.541 to 40.737) in females with a statistically significant difference of 4.16% (95% CI: 2.29 to 6.01). The most MMC configuration found in this review to be confluent with the mesiobuccal canal. Conclusion: The results showed an overall 5.09% prevalence of MMC in mandibular molars, with a significantly high prevalence in female subjects. Additionally, this canal was found to be confluent with the mesiobuccal canal.

Effect of Fibres on Physico-Mechanical Properties of Bulk-Fill Resin Composites.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the flexural strength (FS) of bulk-fill resin composites and assess their long-term water absorption and solubility properties with and without the inclusion of short glass fibres. METHODS: One resin composite, everX Flow with fibres, and four commercially available bulk-fill composites without fibres, namely, PALFIQUE, Activa, SDR Plus, and Filtek Bulk Fill One, were tested. Six specimens (2 × 2 × 25 mm) were fabricated for each material and stored in water for 1 day and 30 days to measure the flexural strength using a three-point bending test. To evaluate water absorption and solubility, circular disks measuring 15 × 2 mm (n = 5) were immersed in water for 60 days, and their weights were recorded periodically. After 60 days, the specimens were dried for an additional 21 days to determine solubility. RESULTS: Flexural strength values ranged from 101.7 to 149.1 MPa. Significant distinctions were observed among the resin composites at the onset of the study (p < 0.05). The highest FS value was identified in everX Flow, while ACT exhibited the lowest (p < 0.05). However, the flexural strength values exhibited a significant decrease with increased storage time (p < 0.05), except for ACT, which demonstrated a noteworthy increase. Concerning water absorption and solubility, ACT displayed the highest absorption, while the range of solubility varied from -0.88 to 5.8 µg/mm3. ACT also had the highest solubility, whereas everX Flow exhibited negative solubility. SIGNIFICANCE: The addition of short fibres, along with potential differences in matrix composition, enhanced the flexural strength of everX Flow. However, the substantial reduction in flexural strength observed in everX Flow and SDR following exposure to water corroborates the manufacturers' recommendation to apply a conventional resin composite cap on these materials.

Patients' Satisfaction and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of Edentulous Patients Using Conventional Complete Dentures and Implant-Retained Overdentures in Saudi Arabia.

The aim of this study was to compare patients' satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) when using implant overdentures vs. conventional dentures. The QoL of Saudi patients who were provided mandibular implant-supported overdentures was assessed using a structured questionnaire. Overall satisfaction; ability to speak, eat, and chew food; comfort; esthetics; stability; and satisfaction of general oral health were measured. A total of 48.3% vs. 6.9% were, overall, very satisfied with their implant overdentures and conventional dentures, respectively. A total of 37.9% of the patients were very satisfied regarding speaking with their implant overdentures vs. 17.2% with conventional dentures. Furthermore, 41.4% were very comfortable with their implant overdentures vs. 5.2% were very comfortable using conventional dentures. However, only 15.5% were very satisfied with the esthetics of the conventional dentures compared to 43.1% being satisfied with implant overdentures. Only 1.7% were very satisfied with the stability of conventional dentures vs. 44.8% being satisfied using implant overdentures. About 8.6% of the candidates were very satisfied regarding chewing food with conventional dentures vs. 36.2% being very satisfied using implant overdentures. Approximately 10.3% were very satisfied with their general oral health using conventional dentures compared to 29.3% being very satisfied using implant overdentures. Mandibular implant overdentures had a strong impact on patients' quality of life over conventional complete dentures and should be considered the minimum standard of care provided to completely edentulous patients.

Factors associated with oral pain and oral health-related productivity loss in the USA, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES), 2015-2018.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to identify clinical and sociodemographic factors associated with oral pain and oral health-related productivity loss among US adults. METHODS: We included adults aged ≥30 years who completed the dental examination, had at least one natural tooth, and provided an answer about their oral pain experience or oral health-related productivity loss in the 2015-2018 National Health and Nutrition and Examination Survey (NHANES). We performed descriptive analyses and multivariable binary logistic regression analyses on weighted data. RESULTS: One out of four adults had oral pain and 4% reported oral health-related productivity loss occasionally or often within the last year of the survey. The odds of oral pain were higher among non-Hispanic black (OR = 1.35; 95%CI = 1.08-1.62) and non-Hispanic Asian individuals (OR = 1.38; 95%CI = 1.07-1.78) compared to non-Hispanic white individuals, and individuals with untreated dental caries (OR = 2.06; 95%CI = 1.72-2.47). The odds for oral health-related productivity loss were 13.85 times higher among individuals who reported oral pain (95%CI = 8.07-23.77), and 2.18 times higher among individuals with untreated dental caries (95%CI = 1.65-2.89). The odds of oral pain and reported oral health-related productivity loss decreased as family income increased. CONCLUSIONS: Factors including non-Hispanic black race/ethnicity, lower socio-economic status, and untreated dental caries are associated with oral pain experience, which increases the odds of oral health-related productivity losses. Identifying factors associated with oral pain and productivity loss will enable clinicians, policymakers, and employers to proactively target and prioritize the higher-risk groups in early interventions and policies.