Polymeric Scaffolds Used in Dental Pulp Regeneration by Tissue Engineering Approach.

Currently, the challenge in dentistry is to revitalize dental pulp by utilizing tissue engineering technology; thus, a biomaterial is needed to facilitate the process. One of the three essential elements in tissue engineering technology is a scaffold. A scaffold acts as a three-dimensional (3D) framework that provides structural and biological support and creates a good environment for cell activation, communication between cells, and inducing cell organization. Therefore, the selection of a scaffold represents a challenge in regenerative endodontics. A scaffold must be safe, biodegradable, and biocompatible, with low immunogenicity, and must be able to support cell growth. Moreover, it must be supported by adequate scaffold characteristics, which include the level of porosity, pore size, and interconnectivity; these factors ultimately play an essential role in cell behavior and tissue formation. The use of natural or synthetic polymer scaffolds with excellent mechanical properties, such as small pore size and a high surface-to-volume ratio, as a matrix in dental tissue engineering has recently received a lot of attention because it shows great potential with good biological characteristics for cell regeneration. This review describes the latest developments regarding the usage of natural or synthetic scaffold polymers that have the ideal biomaterial properties to facilitate tissue regeneration when combined with stem cells and growth factors in revitalizing dental pulp tissue. The utilization of polymer scaffolds in tissue engineering can help the pulp tissue regeneration process.

Is third molar development affected by third molar impaction or impaction-related parameters?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of third molar impaction and impaction-related parameters on third molar development. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Panoramic radiographs (N=3972) from 473 males and 558 females between 3.2 and 23.5 years old were analysed. Three parameters of impaction were examined: hindering contact between third and adjacent second molar, retromolar space availability (only in lower third molars), and angulation between the third and adjacent second molar. From the separate parameters, a definition for impaction was derived. Third molars' development was staged according to a modified Köhler et al. staging technique. A linear model was used to compare within-stage and overall age, as a function of hindering contact, retromolar space, and impaction. Furthermore, a quadratic function was used to study the correlation between age and angulation. RESULTS: Significant differences were found in mean age as a function of hindering contact and retromolar space, depending on third molar location and stage. There was a significant relation between angulation and age, depending on the stage, with all third molars evolving to a more upright position (closer to 0°). Mean ages of subjects with impacted third molars were significantly lower in certain third molar stages, but the differences were clinically small (absolute differences ≤0.65 years). Moreover, after correction for stage differences, no significant differences in age could be demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: The development of impacted and non-impacted third molars can be considered clinically equal in our study population. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There is no distinction required between impacted and non-impacted third molars for dental age estimation.