Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
4.1
3.1
Journals
Dentistry Journal
Special Issues
Advances in Esthetic Dentistry
share announcement

Advances in Esthetic Dentistry

A special issue of Dentistry Journal (ISSN 2304-6767).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 October 2025 | Viewed by 4013

Special Issue Editor

Prof. Dr. Dubravka Knezović Zlatarić

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Removable Prosthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
Interests: dental treatments; esthetic dentistry; prosthodontics; maxillofacial prosthetics; temporomandibular disorders

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue entitled “Advances in Esthetic Dentistry” invites researchers and clinicians to contribute original scientific studies, reviews, and case reports focused on the latest advancements in esthetic dental care. This Special Issue seeks to explore the transformative potential of new ceramic and resin-matrix materials, emphasizing their role in improving durability, esthetics, and clinical outcomes.

We welcome contributions on innovative adhesive cementation protocols, including research aimed at enhancing bond strength, simplifying procedures, and ensuring long-term success. Articles on novel tooth-whitening techniques that combine safety, efficacy, and patient satisfaction are encouraged, as well as groundbreaking approaches in esthetic implant-prosthodontics that focus on seamless integration and functional excellence.

This Special Issue aims to create a comprehensive platform for advancing knowledge, fostering innovation, and sharing evidence-based practices in the rapidly evolving field of esthetic dentistry. Join us in shaping the future of dental esthetics by contributing your research to this exciting initiative.

Prof. Dr. Dubravka Knezović Zlatarić
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Dentistry Journal is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • ceramic materials
  • resin-matrix composites
  • adhesive cementation protocols
  • tooth-whitening techniques
  • esthetic implant-prosthodontics
  • minimally invasive dentistry
  • digital smile design
  • biomimetic restorations
  • color stability in dentistry
  • innovative bonding agents

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • Reprint: MDPI Books provides the opportunity to republish successful Special Issues in book format, both online and in print.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue policies can be found here.

Published Papers (4 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

20 pages, 1448 KiB  
Article
In Vitro Evaluation of Chemical and Microhardness Alterations in Human Enamel Induced by Three Commercial In-Office Bleaching Agents
by Berivan Laura Rebeca Buzatu, Atena Galuscan, Ramona Dumitrescu, Roxana Buzatu, Magda Mihaela Luca, Octavia Balean, Gabriela Vlase, Titus Vlase, Iasmina-Mădălina Anghel, Carmen Opris, Bianca Ioana Todor, Mihaela Adina Dumitrache and Daniela Jumanca
Dent. J. 2025, 13(8), 357; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13080357 - 6 Aug 2025
Abstract
Background/Objectives: In-office bleaching commonly employs high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (HP) or carbamide peroxide (CP), which may compromise enamel integrity. This in vitro paired-design study aimed to compare the chemical and mechanical effects of three commercial bleaching agents—Opalescence Boost (40% HP), Opalescence [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: In-office bleaching commonly employs high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (HP) or carbamide peroxide (CP), which may compromise enamel integrity. This in vitro paired-design study aimed to compare the chemical and mechanical effects of three commercial bleaching agents—Opalescence Boost (40% HP), Opalescence Quick (45% CP), and BlancOne Ultra+ (35% HP)—on human enamel. The null hypothesis assumed no significant differences between the control and treated samples. Given the ongoing debate over pH, active ingredients, and enamel impact, comparing whitening systems remains clinically important. Methods: Forty-two extracted teeth were assigned to three experimental groups (n = 14) with matched controls. Each underwent a single bleaching session per manufacturer protocol: Opalescence Boost (≤60 min), Opalescence Quick (15–30 min), and BlancOne Ultra+ (three light-activated cycles of 8–10 min). Enamel chemical changes were analyzed by Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy (phosphate and carbonate bands), and surface hardness by Vickers microhardness testing. Paired t-tests (α = 0.05) assessed statistical significance. Results: FTIR analysis revealed alterations in phosphate and carbonate bands for all agents, most notably for Opalescence Boost and BlancOne Ultra+. Microhardness testing showed significant reductions in enamel hardness for Opalescence Boost (control: 37.21 ± 1.74 Hv; treated: 34.63 ± 1.70 Hv; p = 0.00) and Opalescence Quick (control: 45.82 ± 1.71 Hv; treated: 39.34 ± 1.94 Hv; p < 0.0001), whereas BlancOne Ultra+ showed no significant difference (control: 51.64 ± 1.59 HV; treated: 51.60 ± 2.34 Hv; p = 0.95). Conclusions: HP-based agents, particularly at higher concentrations, caused greater enamel alterations than CP-based products. While clinically relevant, the results should be interpreted cautiously due to in vitro limitations and natural enamel variability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Esthetic Dentistry)
►▼ Show Figures

Graphical abstract

10 pages, 1493 KiB  
Article
Effectiveness of Activated Charcoal Toothpaste vs. 6% Hydrogen Peroxide Whitening Pen—An In Vitro Study
by Elena Bardellini, Silvia Marchetti, Alessandra Bordanzi, Simone Zanini, Alessandra Majorana and Giulio Conti
Dent. J. 2025, 13(5), 216; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13050216 - 19 May 2025
Viewed by 2262
Abstract
Background: Tooth whitening is a widely sought-after cosmetic procedure, with various at-home and professional treatments available. This study compares the whitening efficacy of an activated charcoal toothpaste and a 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening pen under controlled in vitro conditions. Methods: Twenty freshly extracted [...] Read more.
Background: Tooth whitening is a widely sought-after cosmetic procedure, with various at-home and professional treatments available. This study compares the whitening efficacy of an activated charcoal toothpaste and a 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening pen under controlled in vitro conditions. Methods: Twenty freshly extracted human teeth were stained with a coffee solution and divided into two groups. Group A underwent daily applications of activated charcoal toothpaste for 30 days, while Group B received a single 5 min application of a 6% hydrogen peroxide whitening pen. Tooth color was assessed using the VITA Classical A1-D4 Shade Guide at baseline, mid-treatment, and post-treatment for Group A and at baseline and immediately after treatment for Group B. Results: The activated charcoal toothpaste exhibited a gradual whitening effect, with the most significant improvements occurring within the first two weeks (p < 0.01), after which the whitening effect plateaued. In contrast, the hydrogen peroxide whitening pen produced immediate and substantial whitening (p < 0.001). Statistical analysis using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann–Whitney U test confirmed the superior efficacy of the hydrogen peroxide treatment. Conclusions: The hydrogen peroxide whitening pen was significantly more effective in achieving rapid and substantial whitening compared to the activated charcoal toothpaste, which provided gradual but limited improvements. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate the long-term color stability. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Esthetic Dentistry)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 1190 KiB  
Article
Resin Composite Surface Pre-Reacted Glass-Ionomer (S-PRG) Filler for Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A Double-Blinded, Randomized, Split-Mouth Clinical Trial
by Adam Lowenstein, Carlos Fernando Mourão, Mabi L. Singh, Sarah E. Pagni, Ronald D. Perry and Gerard Kugel
Dent. J. 2025, 13(4), 156; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13040156 - 1 Apr 2025
Viewed by 807
Abstract
Background/Objectives: This double-blinded study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a giomer restorative material in comparison to a nanotechnology-based restorative system for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions over a period of 48 months. Methods: A 48-month randomized, controlled, split-mouth [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: This double-blinded study aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of a giomer restorative material in comparison to a nanotechnology-based restorative system for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions over a period of 48 months. Methods: A 48-month randomized, controlled, split-mouth trial was conducted with 49 subjects at its baseline, which was reduced to 34 subjects at follow-up, yielding a statistical power of 69.55%. Cervical lesions were restored using either BEAUTIFIL II LS (BL) or 3M/ESPE Filtek Supreme Universal Restorative (FS). Clinical assessments were performed by blinded examiners, excluding the one who placed the restorations. Evaluations were based on the Hickel criteria, covering esthetic, functional, and biological properties, with comparisons made using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Results: Hickel scores were analyzed with the Mann–Whitney U test to compare BL and FS groups within subjects. Changes in median Hickel scores, sensitivity, and the gingival index were assessed via Friedman’s test, followed by Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with a Bonferroni correction for post-hoc comparisons. The p-values under 0.05 were considered significant, except with the Bonferroni correction. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between materials across most Hickel parameters (p > 0.05), though BL exhibited a trend of better surface staining (76.5% excellent with BL vs. 76.5% excellent with FS) and adjacent mucosa, while FS showed slight advantages in surface luster and color match. Conclusions: The clinical evaluation of restorations for non-carious cervical lesions using giomer and nanotechnology-based restorative systems revealed no statistically significant differences according to the Hickel criteria, indicating a similar clinical performance for both restorative materials. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Esthetic Dentistry)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Other

Jump to: Research

19 pages, 1824 KiB  
Systematic Review
Considerations for Conservative, All-Ceramic Prosthodontic Single-Tooth Replacements in the Anterior Region: A Systematic Review
by Dubravka Knezović Zlatarić and Mirko Soldo
Dent. J. 2025, 13(5), 219; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj13050219 - 19 May 2025
Viewed by 505
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Conservative options for single-tooth replacements in the anterior region include all-ceramic one-retainer resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) and three-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Methods: This systematic review assessed their clinical outcomes. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, an electronic search of MEDLINE/PubMed was [...] Read more.
Background/Objectives: Conservative options for single-tooth replacements in the anterior region include all-ceramic one-retainer resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) and three-unit fixed partial dentures (FPDs). Methods: This systematic review assessed their clinical outcomes. Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, an electronic search of MEDLINE/PubMed was conducted from November 1991 to March 2025 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), prospective cohort studies (PCSs), and retrospective cohort studies (RCSs). Keywords included dental prosthesis, fixed prosthesis, resin-bonded prosthesis, single-tooth replacement, anterior teeth, all-ceramic, lithium disilicate, monolithic, zirconia, survival rate, and success rate. Failures and complications were analyzed to determine long-term outcomes. Results: The search identified 990 articles, and the full-text review of 54 articles was performed, resulting in 23 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. This review revealed that one-retainer RBFDPs and three-unit FPDs in the anterior region demonstrated high survival and success rates. However, debonding was a common complication in RBFDPs, while framework design issues were noted in FPDs. Conclusions: These outcomes highlight the reliability of both approaches as conservative, all-ceramic, prosthodontic interventions for anterior single-tooth replacements. The consideration of one-retainer RBFDPs and three-unit FPDs is advisable due to their favorable clinical performance and minimal invasiveness. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Esthetic Dentistry)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-4
Back to TopTop