ABSTRACT
Bone healing after tooth extraction may be affected by defects of the alveolus buccal wall, such as fenestrations and dehiscences. Therefore, to minimize dimensional changes it is advisable to perform alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extractions. Different biomaterials are used for this purpose. The aim of this study was to investigate the qualitative and quantitative histological changes in human biopsies taken after 6 months of healing of extraction sockets with buccal wall defects. For this purpose, the defects of 36 patients (18 per group) were treated with injectable biphasic calcium phosphate (I-BCP) or bovine xenograft (BX) after extraction. After six months of healing, biopsies were taken and proceeded to the histology laboratory. No evidence of an inflammatory response of the tissue was observed in the biopsies of either group, and the newly formed bone (NB) was in close contact with the remaining biomaterial (BM). The histomorphometric results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the mean percentage of NB (p = 0.854), BM (p = 0.129), and soft tissue (p = 0.094). To conclude, both biomaterials exhibited osteoconductivity and biocompatibility and achieved satisfactory bone regeneration of buccal wall defects after tooth extraction.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of clinical experience level on the shade matching accuracy in different dental occupational groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 80 participants, assigned to one of four groups depending on the level of their clinical experience in shade matching: dental technicians (DTs), residents in prosthodontics (RPs), specialists in prosthodontics (SPs) and dental students (DSs) took part in the study. They were asked to use Tooth guide Training Box (TTB) and determine 15 standardized shade tabs using VITA 3D-Master shade guide. The number of mistakes in final test for each participant was recorded and accuracy was calculated. Color difference (ΔE) values for each shade were calculated from L*, a* and b* values. Differences in accuracy, mean ΔE values and mean error ΔE values between four different groups were examined. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found between the groups regarding accuracy and mean ΔE values (p>0.05). The accuracy rate in four groups was 0.51±0.20 (DTs), 0,54±0.18 (RPs), 0.49±0.16 (SPs) and 0.55±0.14 (DSs), respectively. Mean ΔE values were 2.10±0.98 (DTs), 2.18±0.97 (RPs), 2.51±0.97 (SPs) and 2.08±0.86 (DSs), respectively. Regarding mean error ΔE values, DTs made errors with significantly less deviations compared to other groups (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that clinical experience is not found to be a significant factor to the shade matching accuracy. With regard to the mean error ΔE values, DTs were more successful in shade matching than other participants.
