Feature Papers in Restorative Dentistry, Endodontology and Traumatology

A special issue of Dentistry Journal (ISSN 2304-6767). This special issue belongs to the section "Restorative Dentistry and Traumatology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 June 2024 | Viewed by 8229

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital of Würzburg, 97080 Würzburg, Germany
Interests: clinical dentistry; restorative dentistry; composites; esthetic dentistry; aesthetic dentistry; operative dentistry; composite resins; dental traumatology

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

It is our great pleasure to announce that Dentistry Journal (ISSN: 2304-6767) has received its first Impact Factor of 2.6, released in June 2023.

To celebrate this wonderful achievement, as the Section Editor-in-Chief of the “Restorative Dentistry and Traumatology” Section in Dentistry Journal, I am glad to announce this Special Issue on “Feature Papers in Restorative Dentistry, Endodontology and Traumatology”, to publish top-quality papers. Papers could be both long research papers and review papers highlighting the latest developments in restorative dentistry, endodontology, and traumatology topics. We encourage researchers to contribute papers and invite relevant experts to also do so.

If you are interested in publishing your work in this Special Issue, please contact our Managing Editor, Ms. Adele Min (adele.min@mdpi.com), before submitting. All papers will be subject to a thorough and rigorous peer review.

We look forward to receiving your excellent work.

Prof. Dr. Gabriel Krastl
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Dentistry Journal is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • restorative dentistry
  • dental traumatology
  • endodontology
  • esthetic dentistry
  • operative dentistry
  • composite resins
  • dental materials

Published Papers (4 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review

15 pages, 2691 KiB  
Article
Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
by Anh Duc Nguyen, Natalie Pütz, Mary Michaelis, Kerstin Bitter and Christian Ralf Gernhardt
Dent. J. 2024, 12(5), 128; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12050128 - 7 May 2024
Viewed by 363
Abstract
The purpose of this randomized, split-mouth-designed controlled and single-blinded clinical study was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of Class I and Class II resin composite restorations placed with or without cavity lining with a flowable composite. Fifty patients with treatment needs in [...] Read more.
The purpose of this randomized, split-mouth-designed controlled and single-blinded clinical study was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of Class I and Class II resin composite restorations placed with or without cavity lining with a flowable composite. Fifty patients with treatment needs in two premolars or molars were included. One of the teeth was restored using the nanohybrid composite (Grandio®SO, control group), in the test group a high viscosity flowable composite was additionally applied as a first layer. In both groups, the same self-etch adhesive system was applied. Clinical evaluation after 3 years was carried out using the modified USPHS/Ryge criteria. At the 3-year follow-up the recall rate was 92%. Four restorations failed in the test group (8.7%), three due to the loss of vitality and one after fracture. The control group exhibited a cumulative success rate of 100%, while the test group achieved a success rate of 91.3%. This led to significant differences in the annual failure rate (AFR) between the two groups, with rates of 0% and 2.9% (p < 0.05; Mann–Whitney U-test). After 3 years the cumulative survival rate including all restorations was 95.7%. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences for the parameters: tooth vitality, marginal discoloration, success rate, and AFR. The other parameters exhibited no significant differences. Consequently, the nanohybrid composite demonstrated excellent performance over a 3-year period, whereas the utilization of a flowable composite for the cavity lining did not appear to exert a beneficial influence on clinical outcomes. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

14 pages, 2438 KiB  
Article
Comparative Analysis of Endodontic ISO Size 06, 08, and 10 Stainless Steel K-Files Used for Glide Path Procedures
by Abayomi Omokeji Baruwa, Filipa Chasqueira, Sofia Arantes-Oliveira, João Caramês, Duarte Marques, Jaime Portugal and Jorge N. R. Martins
Dent. J. 2024, 12(4), 98; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj12040098 - 10 Apr 2024
Viewed by 698
Abstract
Small-sized stainless steel hand files are conventionally employed in root canal treatment procedures for canal scouting and for glide path establishment, owing to their superior flexibility and proficiency in navigating confined spaces. Given the diversity of brands available in the market, there exists [...] Read more.
Small-sized stainless steel hand files are conventionally employed in root canal treatment procedures for canal scouting and for glide path establishment, owing to their superior flexibility and proficiency in navigating confined spaces. Given the diversity of brands available in the market, there exists potential variability in their physical characteristics, thereby influencing clinical performance. Consequently, this study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the design, metallurgy, and mechanical characteristics among seven stainless steel hand file brands across ISO sizes 06, 08, and 10. A total of 315 new 25 mm length stainless steel hand files with apical sizes of 0.06, 0.08, and 0.10 from seven distinct brands were included in the study. A meticulous inspection of all instruments was undertaken to identify any structural deformations that might render them ineligible for the study. The design inspection involved the random selection of instruments from each group, which were examined under various microscopes, including a dental operating microscope, optical microscope, and scanning electron microscope. Furthermore, two instruments from each group underwent energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysis for elemental composition documentation. Mechanical tests were conducted to evaluate the instruments’ resistance to lateral deformation (buckling) and their microhardness. Statistical analysis was executed using the nonparametric Mood’s median test, with a predetermined significance level of 0.05. Regarding the instruments design, all files exhibited an active blade length ranging from 16 to 17 mm. However, variations were observed in the number of spirals, tip designs, and sizes, with the API K-File notably larger in sizes 0.06 and 0.08 compared to the other instruments. Despite uniform elements composition, differences in geometric features and mechanical properties were evident. Concerning buckling strength, the API K-File demonstrated superior performance across all tested sizes, while the Dentsply ReadySteel, SybronEndo, and Mani K-Files exhibited lower results (p < 0.05). In microhardness assessments, both the API and Oro K-Files displayed the lowest outcomes, with medians of 531 HVN and 532 HVN, respectively, whereas the SybronEndo K-File exhibited the highest microhardness (657 HVN). Despite similar metallurgical composition, the observed distinctions in geometric features and mechanical properties underscore the impact of the manufacturing process on the characteristics of glide path stainless steel endodontic files. These disparities may ultimately influence their clinical performance. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

12 pages, 1304 KiB  
Article
Endodontic Outcome of Root Canal Treatment Using Different Obturation Techniques: A Clinical Study
by Alexander Winkler, Philipp Adler, Julia Ludwig, Norbert Hofmann, Sebastian Soliman, Gabriel Krastl and Ralf Krug
Dent. J. 2023, 11(8), 200; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11080200 - 21 Aug 2023
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 4696
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcome of root canal treatment by obturation technique, root canal filling quality, and tooth- and patient-related variables. Methods: This clinical study investigated the endodontic outcome of 114 teeth treated between the years 2009 and 2012. Three different obturation [...] Read more.
Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcome of root canal treatment by obturation technique, root canal filling quality, and tooth- and patient-related variables. Methods: This clinical study investigated the endodontic outcome of 114 teeth treated between the years 2009 and 2012. Three different obturation methods were used: (1) adhesive obturation using the continuous wave of condensation technique with Resilon® (CWR), (2) matching-taper single-cone technique with gutta-percha and AH Plus® (SCGP), and (3) matching-taper single-cone technique with gutta-percha and GuttaFlow® (SCGF). Pre- and postoperative periapical radiographs were performed to detect the presence of endodontic lesions (PAI classification) and to assess the quality of both the obturation and the restoration. Tooth- and patient-related data were collected. Results: The overall endodontic success rate was 75.4% after a mean observation period of 6.3 years. There were no significant correlations between the type or overall quality of obturation and the treatment outcome. Teeth with preoperative lesions had the highest odds ratio (factor of 4.98) for endodontic failure. Tooth- and patient-related variables had no significant effect on endodontic outcome. Conclusions: The preoperative periapical status of teeth requiring endodontic treatment was a substantial prognostic factor for endodontic outcome, whereas the type of obturation material or technique did not affect it. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research

17 pages, 1271 KiB  
Review
Longevity of Anterior Composite Restorations for Localized Tooth Wear: A Scoping Review
by Sindhu Rajarajan, Neil Nathwani, Touraj Nejatian, Peter Fine and Albert Leung
Dent. J. 2023, 11(11), 255; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11110255 - 31 Oct 2023
Viewed by 2064
Abstract
(1) Objective: This scoping review evaluates composite restorations as a treatment modality for anterior tooth surface loss and investigates the longevity of the direct and indirect composites used herein. (2) Method: The search encompassed Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and [...] Read more.
(1) Objective: This scoping review evaluates composite restorations as a treatment modality for anterior tooth surface loss and investigates the longevity of the direct and indirect composites used herein. (2) Method: The search encompassed Medline, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and hand search utilizing the PICO framework. (3) Results: Eight studies were included in this review, comprising one randomized controlled trial, one retrospective, and six prospective studies. Some studies reported favorable outcomes for composite restorations in anterior teeth. Although not statistically significant, evidence supported the anterior composite as a viable short- to medium-term solution for managing tooth wear. Direct resin composites were deemed clinically and cost-effective when managing localized anterior tooth wear. However, limitations and inconsistencies in this scoping review limited definitive clinical recommendations. (4) Conclusions: Further research, including well-managed randomized controlled trials using standardized protocols and longer follow-up periods, is essential to reconfirm the long-term efficacies of anterior composite restorations when managing tooth wear. A robust research design and exacting protocols could facilitate more meaningful clinical conclusions. Full article
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Back to TopTop