Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth Review and Treatment Recommendations

Coronal restorations and posts can positively influence the long-term prognosis of teeth following root canal therapy. Final sealing the canal by placing an appropriate post and core will minimize leakage of oral fluids and bacteria into the periradicular area and is recommended as soon as possible after completion of root canal filling. Glass ionomer or MTA placed over the residual root canal filling after post space preparation may be effective to prevent bacterial leakage. A ferrule of 1-2 mm of tooth tissue coronal to the finish line of the crown significantly improves the fracture resistance of the tooth and is more important than the type of the material the core and post are made of

Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdenture

Background: Two of the most popular resilient attachment systems for mandibular implant-supported overdenture (MISOD) are locator and ball attachments. The purpose of the present retrospective cohort study was to assess the long-term prosthetic aftercare and oral hygiene status in edentulous patients rehabilitated with MISOD. Materials and Methods: Forty-five consecutive patients were included (22, group A- ball vs. 23, group B- locator attachments). Attachment incorporation into the MISOD was conducted in a direct (chair-side) intraoral technique at the time of denture insertion. Routine follow-up included yearly visits. The number of visits requiring prosthetic aftercare, either during the follow-up or during the additional visit, was recorded. Outcome parameters included—prosthetic aftercare—the number of aftercare (primary outcome parameter) visits, and dental treatment received (pressure sores relief, liner changes due to loss of retention, loss of retention due to debris accumulation, denture repair—secondary outcome parameters); oral hygiene—gingival index (primary outcome parameter). Results: The mean follow-up of the entire study population was 84 ± 21 months, range 39–120 months. Statistical analysis revealed a lower need for prosthetic aftercare interventions in group A (p p p p p = 0.318). Oral hygiene also exhibited statistically significant differences in favor of group A (2.3 ± 0.3 vs. 1.03 ± 0.2, p Conclusions: It can be concluded that using ball attachments for MISOD yields less need for aftercare treatments and improved oral hygiene status over the years

Long-Term Prosthetic Aftercare of Mandibular Implant-Supported Overdenture

Background: Two of the most popular resilient attachment systems for mandibular implant-supported overdenture (MISOD) are locator and ball attachments. The purpose of the present retrospective cohort study was to assess the long-term prosthetic aftercare and oral hygiene status in edentulous patients rehabilitated with MISOD. Materials and Methods: Forty-five consecutive patients were included (22, group A- ball vs. 23, group B- locator attachments). Attachment incorporation into the MISOD was conducted in a direct (chair-side) intraoral technique at the time of denture insertion. Routine follow-up included yearly visits. The number of visits requiring prosthetic aftercare, either during the follow-up or during the additional visit, was recorded. Outcome parameters included—prosthetic aftercare—the number of aftercare (primary outcome parameter) visits, and dental treatment received (pressure sores relief, liner changes due to loss of retention, loss of retention due to debris accumulation, denture repair—secondary outcome parameters); oral hygiene—gingival index (primary outcome parameter). Results: The mean follow-up of the entire study population was 84 ± 21 months, range 39–120 months. Statistical analysis revealed a lower need for prosthetic aftercare interventions in group A (p < 0.001). The mean number of visits dedicated to pressure sores relief (6.09 ± 1.04 vs. 3.03 ± 0.77, p < 0.001) and liner exchange due to loss of retention (5.6 ± 1.03 vs. 2.09 ± 1.04, p < 0.001), were significantly lower in group A. Debris (food/calculus) accumulation inside the attachment was noted only for the locator’s group (p < 0.001). No statistically significant differences between the groups were noted for denture repair (p = 0.318). Oral hygiene also exhibited statistically significant differences in favor of group A (2.3 ± 0.3 vs. 1.03 ± 0.2, p < 0.001). Conclusions: It can be concluded that using ball attachments for MISOD yields less need for aftercare treatments and improved oral hygiene status over the years