ABSTRACT
Magnification devices improve direct and indirect vision and precision being significantly higher in microscope use compared to the loupes. Dental loupes are the most commonly used devices for magnification, due to the more affordable prices and the ease of use without major changes in the working protocol and ergonomics. Loupes primary benefits reported refers to ergonomics and posture, restoration evaluation/detection and overall treatment quality. There are some disadvantages that limit the use of loupes among dentists: lack of fixed position (fine movements of the dentist's head disturb the image of the magnified operating field); the need to change the loupes to achieve different magnification. On the contrary, the use of a dental microscope require minimum adjustment and effort so as to reduce postural deviation while working. It has been more than 30 years since dental practitioners raised the issue of using dental operating microscopes (DOM) in restorative dentistry, identifying the benefits of magnification in diagnosis and treatment steps. The growth is evident in recent years, maybe because of the familiarity of dentists with dental microscopes which have already become implicit endowment for endodontic specialists. Fiber optic lighting is the key factor that complements the magnification offered by the microscope so that treatments can now be performed under increased safety conditions and in conditions of significantly higher quality than in the past. Since the beginning of the 2000s the principles of minimally invasive dentistry have been widely promoted in dentistry. These principles are major impetus for the use of microscope by dentists. Working with magnification leads dentists to be more conservative with dental tissues.
ABSTRACT
Background: The objective of the present study was to compare the outcome of direct composite restorations, with and without the use of additional magnification. Methods: Twenty extracted molars were selected for the study. Class 1 Black cavities were prepared. All teeth were etched, and bonding agent was applied. Teeth were assigned randomly into two groups of ten each. Group I: restorations were done without the use of magnification, first by placing a layer of SDR® flow +Bulk Fill Flowable on the base of the cavity, and then restoring the morphology with Ceram.X SphereTEC® One. Group II: the same protocol was applied, but using the dental microscope. Teeth were then evaluated before and after finishing the protocol by 5 dental professionals using a series of established criteria. The results were documented and statistically analyzed using the non-parametric Mann-Whitney test. Results: Statistically significant differences were found when using magnification, before the polishing protocol in "marginal adaptation integrity" and "excess material", and after polishing in "marginal adaptation integrity". Conclusions: Magnification may be used to increase the quality of the final direct posterior restoration by improving the marginal adaptation integrity, reducing excess material, preventing marginal microleakage, and avoiding subsequent failure.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Bioceramics are ceramic compounds obtained both in situ and in vivo, by various chemical processes. Bioceramics exhibit excellent biocompatibility due to their similarity with biological materials, like hydroxyapatite. Bioceramics and multi-substituted hydroxyapatite or similar compounds have the ability to induce a regenerative response in the organism. The aim of this paper is to make a literature review on the main bioceramic materials currently used in endodontics and on their specific characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a search in the international databases (PubMed), to identify publications in the last 10 years, using the following key words: "bioceramics endodontics", "bioceramic endodontic cement", "bioceramic sealer" and "direct pulp capping bioceramic". RESULTS: Commonly used endodontic sealers (e.g., containing zinc oxide, calcium hydroxide and a resin) have a long tradition in scientific research and clinical use in endodontics. For specific cases, like root resorptions, perforations, apexification, and retrograde fillings, new biocompatible materials were developed in order to improve the clinical outcome: ProRooT MTA (Dentsply Company, Germany); Biodentine (Septodont, France); Endosequence BC sealer (Brassler, SUA); Bioaggregate (IBC, Canada); Generex A (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, USA). CONCLUSION: The studies are generally in favor of bioceramic materials even if there are not many products available on the market for endodontic use. As more products are launched and more research is performed regarding these materials, we will provide more reliable data on clinical outcome.
