Special Issue "Bioactive Materials for Dental and Maxillofacial Repair"

A special issue of Prosthesis (ISSN 2673-1592). This special issue belongs to the section "Bioengineering and Biomaterials".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 31 May 2023 | Viewed by 4908

Special Issue Editors

Dr. Nichola Coleman
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
School of Science, Faculty of Engineering and Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent ME4 4TB, UK
Interests: silicate materials; biomaterials; cements; glasses
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals
Prof. John W. Nicholson
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Bluefield Centre for Biomaterials Ltd., Unit 34, 67-68 Hatton Garden, London EC1N 8JY, UK
Interests: chemistry; biomaterials; glass ionomer cements; dental restoratives

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Implantable bioactive materials possess the ability to form a true chemical bond with the host tissue, without the formation of fibrous capsule, by eliciting a biological response at the interface. The term ‘bioactivity’ also refers to small pharmacologically active molecules of natural or synthetic origin that are used in therapeutic applications. In both cases, these bioactive materials/molecules are intended to restore function by stimulating a positive response from the damaged host tissue.

This Special Issue focuses on current initiatives in bioactive materials for dental and maxillofacial repair and restoration. The potential topics for original research articles and critical reviews include but are not limited to the following biomaterials and bioactive molecules:

Dental restoratives for enamel, dentine, pulp and cementum—glass ionomer cements, calcium silicate cements; compomers; bioactive glasses; experimental materials;

Guided tissue regeneration membranes—non-resorbable and biodegradable barriers for the regeneration of cementum, alveolar bone, and periodontal ligament;

Dental socket preservation materials—bioactive glasses; calcium phosphates; polymer and composite scaffolds; allografts;

Dental and maxillofacial implants—metals and their alloys; ceramics; polymers and hydrogels;

Other Topics—sinus lift materials; platelet rich fibrin applications; growth factors and other bioactive molecules.

Dr. Nichola J. Coleman
Prof. John W. Nicholson
Guest Editors

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. Prosthesis is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly 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 1400 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

  • prosthodontics
  • dental and maxillofacial prosthetics
  • biomaterials
  • implants
  • ceramics
  • cements
  • glasses
  • metals
  • alloys
  • polymers
  • bioactive molecules
  • tissue regeneration
  • bone
  • enamel
  • pulp
  • cementum
  • cartilage

Published Papers (4 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Review, Other

Article
Wearing Effect of Implant Steel Drills and Tappers for the Preparation of the Bone Osteotomies: An Infrared Thermal Analysis and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy-Scanning Electron Microscopy (EDS-SEM) Study
Prosthesis 2022, 4(4), 679-694; https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis4040054 - 30 Nov 2022
Viewed by 591
Abstract
Background: The thermal effect correlated with implant osteotomy could produce significant effects on the healing process and fixture osseointegration. The aim of the present investigation was to assess the heat generation and surface wearing of dental implant drills and manual tappers during simulated [...] Read more.
Background: The thermal effect correlated with implant osteotomy could produce significant effects on the healing process and fixture osseointegration. The aim of the present investigation was to assess the heat generation and surface wearing of dental implant drills and manual tappers during simulated osteotomies on animal ribs. Methods: Steel drills (20 units per type) and tappers (20 units per type) were evaluated for a total of 30 osteotomies. The infrared thermal analysis was performed at the first and thirtieth osteotomy. The surface alteration and wearing was assessed by energy dispersive spectroscopy–scanning electron microscopy (EDS-SEM) prior to and after use. Conclusions: The drill material produced a non-significant temperature change during bone osteotomy. Lower heating was reported for manual tappers in favor of a manual osteotomy instead rotary instruments. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactive Materials for Dental and Maxillofacial Repair)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Article
Investigating the Cytotoxicity of Dual-Cure Bulk-Fill Resin Materials on L929 Cells
Prosthesis 2022, 4(3), 447-457; https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis4030036 - 15 Aug 2022
Viewed by 770
Abstract
The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate cytotoxic effects of dual-cure bulk-fill resin materials polymerized with a third-generation LED light-curing unit (LCU) on L929 fibroblast cells in terms of morphology and viability. Three novel dual-cure, flowable bulk-fill materials (Fill-Up!™), a [...] Read more.
The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate cytotoxic effects of dual-cure bulk-fill resin materials polymerized with a third-generation LED light-curing unit (LCU) on L929 fibroblast cells in terms of morphology and viability. Three novel dual-cure, flowable bulk-fill materials (Fill-Up!™), a bioactive material (ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE™), and a dual-cure bulk-fill composite material (HyperFIL® HAp) polymerized by LED LCU (VALO™ Cordless) were tested. Each material was placed in plastic rings (4 mm × 5 mm) in a single layer. Unpolymerized rings filled with each material were placed in direct contact with cells and then polymerized. After polymerization, the removed medium was readded to wells. In this study, four control groups were performed: the medium-free control group, medium control group, physical control group, and light applied control group. Three samples were prepared from each group. After 24 h, the morphology of cells was examined and a WST-1 test was performed. The percentage of cell viability (PCV) of each group was calculated. The experiment was repeated three times. Data were analyzed by a Kruskal–Wallis Test and a Mann–Whitney U test. p < 0.05 was considered significant. The PCV of all groups were found to be significantly lower than the medium control group (p < 0.05). The lowest PCV was obtained in HyperFIL® Hap, while highest was in the Fill-Up!™. In the morphology of cells related to the experimental groups, it was observed that the spindle structures of cells were disrupted due to cytotoxicity; cells became rounded and intercellular space increased. There were no significant differences between the control groups (p > 0.05). All control groups showed acceptable PCV (>70%) and cells were spindle-like, similar to the original fibroblast cells. It can be suggested that clinicians should pay attention when applying dual-cure bulk-fill materials in deep cavities, or they should use a liner material under these materials. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactive Materials for Dental and Maxillofacial Repair)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Review

Jump to: Research, Other

Review
Periodontal Therapy Using Bioactive Glasses: A Review
Prosthesis 2022, 4(4), 648-663; https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis4040052 - 10 Nov 2022
Viewed by 555
Abstract
This paper reviews the use of bioactive glasses as materials for periodontal repair. Periodontal disease causes bone loss, resulting in tooth loosening and eventual tooth loss. However, it can be reversed using bioactive glass, typically the original 45S5 formulation (Bioglass®) at [...] Read more.
This paper reviews the use of bioactive glasses as materials for periodontal repair. Periodontal disease causes bone loss, resulting in tooth loosening and eventual tooth loss. However, it can be reversed using bioactive glass, typically the original 45S5 formulation (Bioglass®) at the defect site. This is done either by plcing bioactive glass granules or a bioactive glass putty at the defect. This stimulates bone repair and causes the defect to disappear. Another use of bioactive glass in periodontics is to repair so-called furcation defects, i.e., bone loss due to infection at the intersection of the roots in multi-rooted teeth. This treatment also gives good clinical outcomes. Finally, bioactive glass has been used to improve outcomes with metallic implants. This involves either placing bioactive glass granules into the defect prior to inserting the metal implant, or coating the implant with bioactive glass to improve the likelihood of osseointegration. This needs the glass to be formulated so that it does not crack or debond from the metal. This approach has been very successful, and bioactive glass coatings perform better than those made from hydroxyapatite. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactive Materials for Dental and Maxillofacial Repair)

Other

Jump to: Research, Review

Perspective
Bioactivity—Symphony or Cacophony? A Personal View of a Tangled Field
Prosthesis 2021, 3(1), 75-84; https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis3010008 - 02 Mar 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 1935
Abstract
In the pursuit of better treatments, the concept of a chemically-active material, responding to local conditions by causing reactions, or reacting to produce substances that are deemed beneficial, seems laudable. Ultimately, the goal appears to be to recruit natural biological processes such that [...] Read more.
In the pursuit of better treatments, the concept of a chemically-active material, responding to local conditions by causing reactions, or reacting to produce substances that are deemed beneficial, seems laudable. Ultimately, the goal appears to be to recruit natural biological processes such that a natural ‘repair’ is effected. This goal seems to be the reason for prefixing “bio-” to many terms with a view to advertising the desire, yet without presenting evidence that it has occurred, or indeed that it is capable of occurring, relying instead on non-biological processes to justify the claims. The dogma is such that all work where local ‘responsive’ chemistry is involved must receive the label “bioactive” to legitimize and promote. Nevertheless, the primary evidence adduced is flawed, and the claim must fail. A rethink to restore scientific sense and confidence in the endeavour is essential if real progress is to be made. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactive Materials for Dental and Maxillofacial Repair)
Back to TopTop