Search

Background/Aim: External inflammatory root resorption (EIRR) and external replacement root resorption (ERRR) are the most common adverse outcomes after luxation injuries or dental injuries. They are usually detected radiographically after considerable progression. It can be envisaged that evaluation of inflammatory mediators might serve as an objective and reliable method of predicting the risk of resorption. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the evidence regarding the risk of resorption and to provide future research directions. Methods: An a priori protocol was prepared by a multidisciplinary expert group, as per the Cochrane handbook and PRISMA guidelines. The systematic search was conducted in six databases and grey‐literature sources. Scrutiny of titles and abstracts, and later full‐text articles was performed, and data were extracted. Risk of bias analysis was done by using the Joanna Briggs Institute's Critical Appraisal Checklist for analytical cross‐sectional and cohort studies. Results: Eight studies were included in the systematic review and could be categorized as per the source of biomarkers, namely epithelial cells from mucosa, gingival crevicular fluid and extracted teeth. The studies utilizing epithelial cells had been conducted between 2015 and 2018 in Brazil and did not find any correlation with EIRR. Two of the studies with extracted teeth found differences in the immunologic profiles of teeth with resorption. Three studies evaluating gingival crevicular fluid found increased levels of dentine sialoprotein and Interleukin‐1‐α. Conclusion: Among the three sources, the inflammatory gingival crevicular fluid appeared to be the most non‐invasive source of biomarkers for predicting trauma‐induced root resorption, although the evidence about this came from two studies with moderate and one study with high risk of bias. The primary studies in this systematic review showed variability in terms of the sample sizes, age of the patients, the grading/classification of trauma‐induced resorption and the evaluation methods which must be addressed by future researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/aims: The recommended treatment for uncomplicated crown fractures is bonding the fractured fragment or the fragment reattachment. A paucity was identified regarding the studies comparing the efficacy of micro-hybrid and nanohybrid composites in fragment reattachment. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate and compare three materials for bonding of fragments rehydrated by humidification in teeth with uncomplicated crown fractures., Material and Methods: Eighty mandibular bovine incisors with similar dimensions and free of any structural deformities were fractured similar to the technique followed in previous studies. Fracture was simulated, fragments, and stumps were coded, stumps were stored in artificial saliva and the fragments were dehydrated at room temperature and pressure. They were randomly assigned to Group-1 (no rehydration), Group-2 (rehydrated and bonded by flowable nanohybrid composite-3M Filtek Supreme Syringe Flowable Composite Resin-A2, Sao Paulo, Brazil), Group-3 (rehydrated and bonded by flowable micro-hybrid composite- Ruby Flow, InciDental, England, United Kingdom), and Group-4 (rehydrated and bonded by light-cured Glass-Ionomer-Cement-Voco Ionoseal, Cuxhaven, Germany). The samples were subjected to a universal testing machine to evaluate the force required to fracture the bonded fragments., Results: The highest median value of the force required to fracture was recorded for Group 2 (208.4 N) followed by Group 3 (195.2). The force required to fracture the bonded fragments was lowest in Group 4 (67.2 N) which was lower than the negative control (131.4 N). The differences between the observations in Groups 2 and 3 were not found to be statistically significant., Conclusion: The nano and micro-hybrid composites showed greater force required to fracture than fragments bonded by LC-GIC. Dehydrated fragments bonded using nanocomposites performed better than rehydrated fragments bonded by using LC-GIC., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)