OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of Giomer and a self-etch adhesive system compared with a nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive system in Class I and Class II restorations.
METHODS: The study was designed to be double-blinded with intra-individual control. 48 patients with 54 pairs of cavities (class I or class II) were recruited. Each pair of restorations was placed with either BEAUTIFIL II (BF) and FL-BOND II (FL) or Filtek Z350 (Z350) and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SMP). Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline, 6-month, 18-month, 4-year and 8-year after placement according to modified USPHS criteria. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and log rank tests were performed (SPSS 20.0, IBM Corporation, US) to compare the survival probability of different restorations.A generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) was adopted to assess the performance of the materials. The McNemar test was used to show significant changes for all the evaluation criteria and difference between them.
RESULTS: At the eight-year recall, 32 patients with 67 restorations were present. There were twelve restorations in total recorded as failure due to loss of retention, restoration fracture, secondary caries, tooth fracture or endodontic treatment due to pulp necrosis. The survival probabilities and calculated annual failure rate(AFR) of BF and Z350 restorations at 8-year were 87.2 % vs 87.8 % and 1.6 % vs 1.5 % respectively with no significant difference (p > 0.05)between the two materials. Over the recall time range of eight years, decreased possibility of alpha rating was observed for retention, marginal adaptation, marginal staining and surface roughness for both materials (p < 0.05). Decreased possibility of alpha rating was observed for surface staining and secondary caries for Z350 (p < 0.05) and restoration fracture for BF (p < 0.05), respectively. Comparing the two restorative systems over eight years, no significant difference was seen for linear decline of the possibility of alpha rating for any of the criteria evaluated (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Giomer material and the self-etch adhesive system had comparable clinical performance with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive system over the observation period of eight years.

The purpose of this paper was to retrospectively assess the local factors that are likely to be associated with the risks for one-year dental implant loss.A retrospective study was designed and implemented. The sample consisted of patients who underwent an implant loss or removal caused by peri-implantitis or infection after prosthesis loading. The chi-squared test and generalised estimating equations (GEE) were used to explore the potential risk factors for one-year implant loss. A total of 279 patients with 287 failed implants were enrolled in this study. Immediate implant placement exhibited a 3.373 (95% CI: 1.652 to 6.886) significantly increased risk to experience one-year implant loss than early and late implant placement (p = 0.001). In addition, implants loaded during a healing period fewer than two months after implant placement were at 18.139 (95% CI: 8.925 to 36.866) significantly higher risk of one-year implant loss when compared with those that loaded within more than two months after implant placement (p < 0.001). Smokers were 1.866 (OR = 1.866,95% CI: 0.993 to 3.510) times as high risk for one-year implant loss as non-smokers, but there were no significant statistical differences (p = 0.053). Immediate implant placement and early implant loading were considered risk factors for one-year implant loss.

BACKGROUND: Self-glazed zirconia (SZ) restorations are made by a novel additive three-dimensional gel deposition approach, which are suitable for a straightforward completely digital workflow. SZ has recently been used as minimally invasive veneer, but its clinical outcomes have not been clarified yet. This study aimed to evaluate the preliminary clinical outcomes of SZ veneers compared with the widely used lithium disilicate glass-ceramic veneers made by either pressing (PG) or milling (MG) process.
METHODS: Fifty-six patients treated with SZ, PG, and MG veneers by 2 specialists between June 2018 and October 2022 were identified. Patients were recalled for follow-up at least 1 year after restoration. Clinical outcomes were assessed by 2 independent evaluators according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Overall patient satisfaction was assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS), and analyzed by one-way ANOVA. Chi-square test was applied to compare the difference in the success and survival rates among the 3 groups.
RESULTS: A total of 51 patients restored with 45 SZ, 40 PG, and 41 MG veneers completed the study, with a patient dropout rate of 8.9%. Mean and standard deviation of follow-up period was 35.0 ± 14.7 months. All restorations performed well at baseline, except for 2 SZ veneers with mismatched color (rated Bravo). During follow-up, marginal discrepancy (rated Bravo) was found in 4 MG veneers and 1 PG veneer, and partially fractured (rated Charlie) was found in another 2 PG veneers. The survival rate of SZ, PG, and MG veneers was 100%, 95%, and 100%, with a success rate of 95.56%, 92.50%, and 90.24%, respectively, none of which were significantly different (p = 0.099 and 0.628, respectively). The mean VAS score of SZ, PG, and MG was 95.00 ± 1.57, 93.93 ± 2.40, and 94.89 ± 2.00 respectively, without significant difference (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: SZ veneers exhibited comparable preliminary clinical outcomes to PG and MG veneers, which could be considered as a feasible option for minimally invasive restorative treatment.

This randomized, controlled clinical trial compares the clinical performance of glass-fibre and resorbable polylactic acid (PLA) intracanal posts used to restore carious primary incisors in young patients. The study sample includes 180 primary upper central incisors of 90 children aged 3 to 4 years. All patients were randomly divided into two equal groups of 45 children who received PLA and glass-fibre (GFP) intracanal posts. The clinical assessment of incisor restorations was carried out immediately upon completion and at months 3, 6 and 12 according to the following criteria: anatomical form, marginal adaptation, surface roughness, marginal pigmentation, colour match, secondary caries and contact point. The Gingival Index (GI), the Bleeding Index (Cowell modification; mBI), and bite force (BF) were measured. At the 3-month follow-up, the occlusal BF of patients who received PLA posts was higher than the baseline; the GI and mBI scores were lower, by contrast (p < 0.05). This tendency was even more pronounced 6 and 12 months after the restoration. The incidence of side effects or symptoms (apical inflammation, cervical fracture, loosening of the crown) after the PLA posts was significantly lower than after the GFP (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were present between the two groups with respect to colour matching, anatomical form, marginal adaptation, marginal pigmentation, surface roughness, occlusal contact and secondary caries. Based on the results, applying PLA intracanal posts and cyanoacrylate to residual anterior crowns in young children can improve their gingival health, reduce side effects, and increase the likelihood of successful restoration.

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study aims to compare the fracture resistance of three CAD/CAM materials used in endocrown restoration of interproximal defects in maxillary premolars.
METHODS: 45 maxillary premolars extracted as part of orthodontic treatment were included. Following standardized root canal treatment, all teeth were prepared into Mesial-Occlusal (MO) cavity types. The samples were then randomly divided into three groups: LD [repaired with lithium disilicate glass ceramics (IPS e.max CAD)], VE [treated with polymer-infiltrated ceramics (Vita Enamic)], and LU [repaired with resin-based nanoceramics (Lava Ultimate)]. Axial static loading was applied using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min until fracture, and fracture resistance and failure modes were recorded.
RESULTS: Regarding Fracture Resistance Values (FRVs), the LD group exhibited significantly higher values than the other two groups, VE (P = 0.028) and LU (P = 0.005), which showed no significant difference (P = 0.778). On the other hand, regarding failure modes, the LD group had a higher prevalence of irreparable fractures compared to the other two groups, VE (P < 0.001) and LU (P < 0.001), which showed no significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS: Although lithium disilicate glass ceramics exhibited higher FRVs, they had a lower repair probability. In contrast, polymer-infiltrated ceramics and resin-based nanoceramics contributed to tooth structure preservation.
CONCLUSIONS: For maxillary premolars with interproximal defects following root canal treatment, resin ceramic composites are recommended for restoration to enhance abutment teeth protection.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the survival rate and clinical failure reasons of onlay and occlusal veneer restorations retrospectively, and to put forward valuable suggestions for the selection of clinical indications.
METHODS: A total of 102 patients and 124 teeth treated by one of the authors from 2016 to 2019 were subjected to CAD/CAM lithium silicate reinforced glass-ceramic onlay or veneer restorations of premolars and molars, including 43 teeth with pulp vitality, 81 endodontic treated teeth, and occlusal thickness of restoration was 1.5 mm. After four years of restoration, retrospective surveys were conducted to record the survival rate of restorations, the causes of restoration failure, and patient satisfaction rates, and the survival rate of restorations between vital teeth and endodontic treated teeth and among restored teeth was statistically analyzed by Chi-square test.
RESULTS: The survival rates of restorations on vital teeth and endodontic treated teeth were 95.5% and 90.0%, respectively, the average survival rate was 90.2%. The survival rates of vital teeth were higher than those of endodontic treated teeth without statistical difference. There was also no statistically significant difference among the tooth locations. The causes of failure included the cracking of the restoration, the loss of the restoration, the fracture of the abutment teeth, secondary caries below the adjacent contact point, and food impaction caused by the loosening of the adjacent contact point. The overall patient satisfaction rate was 91.5%.
CONCLUSIONS: The 4-year survival rate of glass-ceramic onlays and occlusal veneers is lower than that of the full crown restoration, and there are more complications than that of the single-crown restorations. The design of the restoration should be carefully selected based on the vitality of the abutment tooth and the remaining amount of tooth tissue. When there is too little tooth structure left, a post and crown should be selected for restoration. Adequate strength and thickness of the restoration should be ensured to prevent food impaction. Due to the small amount of abutment tooth preparation, it has the advantages of less stimulation of the pulp and periodontal tissue, and can be recommended as a trial restoration.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the 3- to 8-year outcomes of dental implants placed with lateral sinus floor augmentation (LSFA) and to identify factors affecting implant survival.
METHODS: This retrospective study was performed by screening all implants placed with LSFA procedures, which were conducted between January 2012 and December 2016. Subantral bone gain (SABG) and apical bone height (ABH) were assessed using panoramic radiographs. The cumulative survival rate of implants was analysed using life-table analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves. The influential risk factors affecting survival were assessed using univariate log-rank tests and multivariable mixture cure rate model. Implant complications were recorded.
RESULTS: Based on the established criteria, a total of 449 patients (760 implants) were included in this study. In the 3- to 8-year follow-up (mean ± SD, 5.81 ± 1.33 years), 15 implants in 14 patients failed, with a CRS of 96.81% on an implant basis and 95.07% on a patient basis. A history of periodontitis and poor compliance with supportive periodontal treatment was associated with a significantly higher risk of implant failure at both implant and patient levels. Significant decreases in ABH occurred during each yearly interval except for 3 years. A similar trend has been observed for SABG at 1, 2, 6 and 8 years. The total complication rate was 31.84% on implant basis, with peri-implant mucositis (21.58%) being the most frequent biologic complication and porcelain cracking (5.00%) being the most common technical complication.
CONCLUSIONS: Implant with LSFA is a reliable treatment option in atrophic maxilla. A history of periodontitis without regular supportive periodontal treatment was identified as a predictor for implant failure. Slight but significant shrinkage of vertically augmented bone can be observed after implant placement.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical survival rates and influence factors of different types of resin-bonded fixed partial dentures (RBFPD) used in anterior missing teeth restoration. Methods: Ninety-three RBFPD were delivered to 92 patients [92 patients,43 males and 49 females, average age (46.1±12.8) years] who visited Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology from January 2006 to December 2021 for restoration of 1 or 2 anterior missing teeth. Altogether 32 cases of glass fiber reinforced RBFPD, 39 cases of glass-based ceramic RBFPD and 22 cases of porcelain-fused-to-metal RBFPD were retrospectively analyzed. The complete survival rate, functional survival rate, patients\' satisfaction and color matching of the restorations were recorded and evaluated every year since the replacement with RBFPD. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve method was used for survival analysis, and the Log-rank analysis was used to compare the effect of the number of missing teeth, position (maxillary or mandibular), cantilever or non-cantilever and gender on the survival rate of the restorations. Results: The overall survival time for the 93 RBFPD was 13.7 years (95%CI: 12.3-15.1 years). There was a decreasing trend in complete survival and functional survival for all three material RBFPD from year to year, but complete and functional survival rates exceeded 90% at year 5 and exceeded 80% at year 10. The complete survival rate of the glass-ceramic RBFPD was higher than the other two during the follow-up period, with a complete survival rate of 90% (35/39) at year 15. The porcelain-fused-to-metal RBFPD had a higher functional survival rate in years 1-8, but the complete and functional survival rates showed a substantial decrease after year 9. The single-factor Log-rank analysis showed that the success rate of porcelain-fused-to-metal RBFPD was significantly higher than that of glass fiber reinforced RBFPD (χ²=7.33, P=0.007), and the success rate of RBFPD with 1 missing tooth restored was significantly higher than that of RBFPD with 2 missing teeth restored (χ²=3.23, P=0.072). The differences in success rates between different restoration positions (maxillary and mandibular), cantilever or non-cantilever, and gender factors were not statistically significant (χ²=2.26, P=0.133; χ²=0.68, P=0.411; χ²=1.07, P=0.300). Conclusions: For the restoration of individual missing anterior teeth, both porcelain-fused-to-metal RBFPD and glass-based ceramic RBFPD achieve a high long-term clinical success rate, with glass-based ceramic RBFPD being more able to ensure long-term restorative result.
目的： 评价粘接固定义齿（RBFPD）修复前牙缺失的长期临床应用效果并分析其影响因素。 方法： 对2006年1月至2021年12月于北京大学口腔医学院·口腔医院修复科就诊的1或2颗前牙缺失患者［92例，男性43例，女性49例，年龄（46.1±12.8）岁］的RBFPD（93件）进行回顾性分析，包括玻璃纤维增强树脂RBFPD（32件）、玻璃陶瓷RBFPD（39件）以及镍铬合金烤瓷RBFPD（22件）。统计修复后RBFPD的完全存活率和功能存活率，利用Kaplan-Meier生存曲线法进行生存分析，Log-rank检验比较缺牙数、修复位置（上颌或下颌）、单端或双端修复以及性别因素对修复体生存率的影响。 结果： 93件RBFPD的总体生存时间为13.7年（95%CI：12.3~15.1年）。3种材料RBFPD的完全存活率及功能存活率呈逐年下降趋势，但修复后5年完全存活率和功能存活率均超过90%，修复后10年完全存活率和功能存活率均超过80%。随访期间玻璃陶瓷RBFPD的完全存活率均高于其他两种RBFPD，修复后15年完全存活率为90%（35/39）。修复后1~8年镍铬合金烤瓷RBFPD功能存活率较高，但修复后9年镍铬合金烤瓷RBFPD完全存活率和功能存活率出现大幅度降低。单因素分析显示，镍铬合金烤瓷RBFPD的生存率显著大于玻璃纤维增强树脂RBFPD（χ²=7.33，P=0.007），修复1颗缺失牙的RBFPD生存率显著大于修复2颗缺失牙的RBFPD（χ²=3.23，P=0.072）；而修复位置（上颌或下颌）、单端或双端修复以及性别因素对生存率的影响差异无统计学意义（χ²=2.26，P=0.133；χ²=0.68，P=0.411；χ²=1.07，P=0.300）。 结论： 对于个别前牙缺失，镍铬合金烤瓷RBFPD和玻璃陶瓷RBFPD均可取得较长期的临床成功率，玻璃陶瓷RBFPD能保证长期修复效果。.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the timing of implant failure events and their relationship with the dental position and the factors affecting the survival time of implants.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to analyze the patients who had implants removed due to implant failure in the Department of Dental Implantology of Hefei Stomatological Hospital from January 2019 to December 2021. The predictor variables were surgical age, gender, smoking habit, oral hygiene, glucose value, jaw and dental position, implant type, implant number, surgeon, implant placement timing, implant loading timing, and antibiotic use timing. The outcome measurement was the implant survival time and implant failure events. Chi-square test, Kaplan-Meier(Log-rank test), and Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify and stepwise determined potential risk factors for implant survival time with SPSS 21.0 software package.
RESULTS: A total of 89 patients(95 implants) had to remove implants. The mean survival time of the failed implants was 31(95%CI :24.2-39.1) months. Implant number (P=0.038), implant loading timing (P=0.050), and tooth position (P=0.024) were significantly correlated with the implant survival time. The risk of failure with 2 implants was 2.709 (HR=3.709, 95%CI: 1.075-12.795) times higher than that with 1 implant, and the risk of failure with late implant loading was 0.551(HR=1.511, 95%CI: 0.999-2.406) times higher than that with early implant loading. The risk of anterior teeth implant failure was 1.384 times higher than that of molars(HR=2.384, 95%CI:1.327-4.283). For patients with implant failure, about 50% of the patients removed the failed implant within 1 year after surgery, and the rate of removal of the failed implant gradually slowed down in the following 2-10 years. Peri-implantitis most commonly occurred in molars(50%). Implant fracture lastly occurred at 55(95%CI: 42.2-67.9) months postoperatively（P=0.000）.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of implants, implant loading timing, and dental position were considered as the influencing factors for the survival time of implants. Follow-up in the first year after implantation seems to be particularly important for timely detection of problems and timely intervention. The occurrence of implant failure events was related to dental position and time.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical, radiographic, and immunological outcomes between one-piece versus two-piece zirconia abutments supported single implant crowns in the esthetic region.
METHODS: The study followed a split-mouth, double-blind, and randomized controlled clinical design for a duration of 3 years. Twenty-two eligible patients with 44 implants were randomly assigned to two groups: Group 1 (one-piece zirconia abutment with zirconia base, n = 22) and Group 2 (two-piece zirconia abutment with titanium base, n = 22). The primary outcome was the technical complication rate. Additionally, survival rates, cytokines concentrations in peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF), peri-implant conditions, marginal bone loss, and pink/white esthetics score (PES/WES) were assessed as secondary outcomes.
RESULTS: Twelve of 22 patients attended the 1-year follow-up (due to the COVID pandemic), and 19 patients attended the 3-year examination. Two abutments in Group 1 were fractured after 10 and 12 months in function. Additionally, one screw loosening occurred in Group 1 at 1-year follow-up. The 3-year technical complication rate was significantly higher in Group 1 than that in Group 2 (15.79% vs. 0%, p < .001). The 3-year implant survival rate was 100% in both groups. The concentration of IFN-γ in PICF was significantly upregulated in Group 2 (p = .018). Furthermore, the IL-6 concentration was positively correlated with BOP% (p = .020).
CONCLUSIONS: Two-piece zirconia abutments exhibited superior technical performance compared to one-piece designs during a 3-year follow-up in the anterior region. However, further long-term research is necessary to verify the immunological stability of two-piece zirconia abutments.