Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>This article describes a technique to implement guided tooth preparation where the tooth is virtually prepared in the laboratory and preparation templates are created for chairside use.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Clinical Considerations</jats:title><jats:p>Prior to any tooth preparation, patient records are acquired with an intra‐oral scanner, both stump and final shades are selected, and digital photos are taken. These digital records are used in combination with digital laboratory tools to do the virtual preparation first, and then to provide chairside templates for guided tooth preparation.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>The traditional approach of tooth preparation has evolved from historically preparing a tooth without any pretreatment guidance to, more currently, preparing the tooth through a mock‐up of the desired final restoration. The outcome of these traditional approaches is highly dependent on the operator's skills to produce a successful outcome, and often resulted in more tooth structure removal than necessary. However, CAD/CAM technology now offers a guided tooth approach to tooth preparation which minimizes tooth structure removal and provides an advantage to the beginner dentist.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Clinical Significance</jats:title><jats:p>This is a unique approach in digital restorative dentistry.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>This controlled randomized clinical trial determined the whitening efficacy and the intensity and absolute risk of tooth sensitivity in dual whitening when prefilled at‐home whitening trays were used between in‐office whitening intervals.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>An in‐office whitening agent containing 35% hydrogen peroxide was used. A prefilled tray with a whitening agent containing 6% hydrogen peroxide was used for at‐home whitening. Sixty‐six subjects were randomly assigned to three groups. Group I: at‐home whitening was performed 10 times between the in‐office whitening treatments. Group II: at‐home whitening was performed five times between the in‐office whitening treatments. Group III: only in‐office whitening was performed. The tooth color changes were evaluated using a spectrophotometer. A visual analog scale was used to express the pain intensity.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>All the groups showed increased Δ<jats:italic>E</jats:italic>*ab, Δ<jats:italic>E</jats:italic><jats:sub>00</jats:sub>, and ΔWI<jats:sub>D</jats:sub> with increased whitening sessions. Group I at the 3rd whitening session showed significantly higher Δ<jats:italic>E</jats:italic>*ab, Δ<jats:italic>E</jats:italic><jats:sub>00</jats:sub>, and ΔWI<jats:sub>D</jats:sub> than group III. Tooth sensitivity showed higher values up to 24 h after whitening.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Although dual whitening with the prefilled tray and in‐office whitening had higher whitening ability than in‐office whitening alone, the intensity and absolute risk of tooth sensitivity was similar.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Clinical Relevance</jats:title><jats:p>The dual whitening might produce faster and stronger whitening effects than in‐office whitening alone.</jats:p></jats:sec>

<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective</jats:title><jats:p>This scoping review aims to assess the influence of air abrasion with aluminum oxide and bioactive glass on dentin bond strength.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and Methods</jats:title><jats:p>An electronic search was conducted in three databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase), on March 3rd, 2023, with previously identified MeSH Terms. A total of 1023 records were screened. Exclusion criteria include primary teeth, air abrasion of a substrate other than sound dentin, use of particles apart from aluminum oxide or bioactive glass, and studies in which bond strength was not assessed.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Out of the 1023 records, title and abstract screening resulted in the exclusion of 895 and 67 studies, respectively, while full‐text analysis excluded another 25 articles. In addition, 5 records were not included, as full texts could not be obtained after requesting the authors. Two cross‐references were added. Thus, 33 studies were included in this review. It is important to emphasize the absence of standardization of air abrasion parameters. According to 63.6% of the studies, air abrasion does not influence dentin bond strength. Moreover, 30.3% suggest improving bonding performance, and 6.1% advocate a decrease.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Air abrasion with aluminum oxide does not enhance or impair dentin bond strength. The available data on bioactive glass are limited, which hinders conclusive insights.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Clinical Significance</jats:title><jats:p>Dentin air abrasion is a widely applied technique nowadays, with numerous clinical applications. Despite the widespread adoption of this procedure, its potential impact on bonding performance requires a thorough analysis of the existing literature.</jats:p></jats:sec>