Journal of Dentistry

Potential of Tailored Amorphous Multiporous Calcium Silicate Glass for Regenerative Endodontics – A Preliminary Assessment Jie Liu1, Chao-An Chen1,3, Xiaofei Zhu1,2, Brian Morrow1, Ukrit Thamma4, Tia J. Kowal5, Hassan M. Moawad4, Matthias M. Falk5, Himanshu Jain4,*, George T.-J. Huang1,*

Objectives: This study aimed to morphologically investigate the distribution of the adhesive layer when placed prior, or subsequent, to matrix positioning in direct-bonded Class II RBC restorations. An additional aim was to evaluate possible differences when using two-step (CSE, Clearfil SE Bond2) or one-step adhesive system (CU, Clearfil Universal Bond Quick). Methods: Standardized mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal cavities were prepared on 20 human molars. Teeth were randomly allocated to two protocols according to the positioning of contoured sectional metal matrices before (M->A, n=10), or after adhesive application (A->M, n=10). Both adhesive systems were additioned with crystal violet dye (CV, 10 vol%). Specimen sections were evaluated using optical and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Microshear bond strength test (μ-SBS) of CV-additioned adhesives was performed on enamel and dentin of 12 additional molars. Rods of CV-additioned adhesives were subjected to three-point bend test (3PB). Results: M->A produced a layer of adhesive both on tooth-restoration interface and on external restoration surfaces in contact with the matrix. A->M produced a thin layer of adhesive on external tooth surfaces, well beyond cavity and RBC restoration margins. In all restorations, excess RBC material with uneven margins was observed protruding over the cervical margin. μ-SBS: CV addition showed a 10-fold reduction in adhesion forces when CU+CV was used on dentine. 3PB: CSE yielded higher flexural strength values than CU. CV addition reduced flexural strength of CSE.

This data supports the publication in the Journal of Dentistry, January 2024.Article Title: The environmental consequences of oral healthcare provision by the dental teamObjectivesTo undertake a comparative ecological impact (Total lifetime carbon footprint and single use plastics (SUP) waste generation) derived from the provision of professional oral healthcare (Dentists and hygienist) to five different patient categories up to the age of 50 years, representative of different levels of progressive dental disease and treatment experience.MethodCO2e and SUP waste generated was calculated for five patient categories with common preventable diseases; that are representative of different levels of progressive dental disease and treatment experience. The assessment is based on the average restorative care levels for 50-year-olds in the UK. The number of appointments for each procedure was calculated using current evidence-based guidelines. The total lifetime carbon and the SUP waste analysis was calculated using published peer-reviewed data.ResultsThe total carbon footprint follows a progression with low impacts for individual persons with very low disease and treatment experience (285 KgCO2e), escalating to very high impacts (approximately 2,170 KgCO2e) for people with high levels of disease and treatment experience. SUP waste follows a similar linear rise across the different cohorts of dental experience over a lifetime (6-50 years), from 1382 items and 4.6 Kg for patients in a the very low dental experience, to 12,200 items and 33.8Kg for patients in the cohort of very high dental experience.ConclusionsThe provision of all oral healthcare carries an environmental impact in the form of carbon footprint and SUP waste. The cumulative lifetime environmental impact of oral healthcare is proportional to the disease and treatment experience of the individual person for these preventable diseases; with a x8 difference between the two extremes of experience.Clinical SignificanceAll forms of oral healthcare have an environmental impact.The most effective way to mitigate these impacts is through the promotion and provision of effective evidence-based preventive oral healthcare.

This data supports the publication in the Journal of Dentistry, January 2024.Article Title: The environmental consequences of oral healthcare provision by the dental teamObjectivesTo undertake a comparative ecological impact (Total lifetime carbon footprint and single use plastics (SUP) waste generation) derived from the provision of professional oral healthcare (Dentists and hygienist) to five different patient categories up to the age of 50 years, representative of different levels of progressive dental disease and treatment experience.MethodCO2e and SUP waste generated was calculated for five patient categories with common preventable diseases; that are representative of different levels of progressive dental disease and treatment experience. The assessment is based on the average restorative care levels for 50-year-olds in the UK. The number of appointments for each procedure was calculated using current evidence-based guidelines. The total lifetime carbon and the SUP waste analysis was calculated using published peer-reviewed data.ResultsThe total carbon footprint follows a progression with low impacts for individual persons with very low disease and treatment experience (285 KgCO2e), escalating to very high impacts (approximately 2,170 KgCO2e) for people with high levels of disease and treatment experience. SUP waste follows a similar linear rise across the different cohorts of dental experience over a lifetime (6-50 years), from 1382 items and 4.6 Kg for patients in a the very low dental experience, to 12,200 items and 33.8Kg for patients in the cohort of very high dental experience.ConclusionsThe provision of all oral healthcare carries an environmental impact in the form of carbon footprint and SUP waste. The cumulative lifetime environmental impact of oral healthcare is proportional to the disease and treatment experience of the individual person for these preventable diseases; with a x8 difference between the two extremes of experience.Clinical SignificanceAll forms of oral healthcare have an environmental impact.The most effective way to mitigate these impacts is through the promotion and provision of effective evidence-based preventive oral healthcare.

Datasets of relative fluorescence units obtained by spectrofluorometric analysis of filter paper samples and air samples from the environment in a dental clinical setting during simulated dental procedures in a mannequin. Fluorescein was used as a tracer, and an air-turbine or electric micromotor handpiece was used to perform a 10-minuite crown preparation on an upper incisor tooth. Medium volume suction was used concurrently. Datasets of particle counts, temperature, and relative humidity obtained using an optical particle counter under the same conditions. Micromotor handpieces were used at three speeds: 60,000 rpm (60K); 120,000 rpm (120K); and 200,000 rpm (200k). Air sampling and particle counting data were obtained at three distances from the source: 0.5 m; 1.5 m; 1.7 m. Full details of the project can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103746

Datasets of relative fluorescence units obtained by spectrofluorometric analysis of filter paper samples and air samples from the environment in a dental clinical setting during simulated dental procedures in a mannequin. Fluorescein was used as a tracer, and an air-turbine or electric micromotor handpiece was used to perform a 10-minuite crown preparation on an upper incisor tooth. Medium volume suction was used concurrently. Datasets of particle counts, temperature, and relative humidity obtained using an optical particle counter under the same conditions. Micromotor handpieces were used at three speeds: 60,000 rpm (60K); 120,000 rpm (120K); and 200,000 rpm (200k). Air sampling and particle counting data were obtained at three distances from the source: 0.5 m; 1.5 m; 1.7 m. Full details of the project can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103746

Datasets of relative fluorescence units obtained by spectrofluorometric analysis of filter paper samples and air samples from the environment in a dental clinical setting during simulated dental procedures in a mannequin. Fluorescein was used as a tracer, and an air-turbine or electric micromotor handpiece was used to perform a 10-minuite crown preparation on an upper incisor tooth. Medium volume suction was used concurrently. Datasets of particle counts, temperature, and relative humidity obtained using an optical particle counter under the same conditions. Micromotor handpieces were used at three speeds: 60,000 rpm (60K); 120,000 rpm (120K); and 200,000 rpm (200k). Air sampling and particle counting data were obtained at three distances from the source: 0.5 m; 1.5 m; 1.7 m. Full details of the project can be found at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103746