Carlos Moreno-Soriano, Sonia Egido-Moreno, Carlos Omaña-Cepeda, Constanza Saka-Herrán, Enric Jané-Salas, José López-López
Purpose: This study aims to determine whether prosthetic rehabilitation affects salivary flow, pH, and comfort in patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC) and to assess potential differences between irradiated and non-irradiated patients.
Materials and methods: This pilot clinical study focused on patients treated for HNC who require prosthetic rehabilitation. Participants were divided into two groups: irradiated and non-irradiated. Stimulated and unstimulated salivary flow, pH, and perceived comfort sensation were assessed at three time points: T0 (prior to prosthesis placement), T1 (1 month after prosthesis placement), and T6 (6 months after prosthesis placement). Outcomes were compared between the two groups across all time points.
Results: Significant differences were observed in unstimulated salivary flow between T0 and T6, while stimulated salivary flow showed significant differences between T0 and T1, T0 and T6, and T1 and T6. No significant differences were found in salivary pH or perceived comfort. However, 85% of participants reported greater comfort 6 months after prosthetic rehabilitation. Both irradiated and non-irradiated patients demonstrated improvements in salivary flow and perceived oral comfort, although no significant differences were observed between groups. A significant change in pH was detected only in the non-irradiated group.
Conclusions: The study demonstrated a significant increase in both unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow, with no significant differences between groups. Salivary pH increased significantly in the non-irradiated group compared to the irradiated one. Both groups reported improvements in perceived comfort, although no significant differences were observed between T1 and T6.
{"title":"Influence of prosthetic rehabilitation on salivary flow, pH, and comfort sensation in patients treated for head and neck cancer.","authors":"Carlos Moreno-Soriano, Sonia Egido-Moreno, Carlos Omaña-Cepeda, Constanza Saka-Herrán, Enric Jané-Salas, José López-López","doi":"10.1111/jopr.70045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.70045","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study aims to determine whether prosthetic rehabilitation affects salivary flow, pH, and comfort in patients treated for head and neck cancer (HNC) and to assess potential differences between irradiated and non-irradiated patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This pilot clinical study focused on patients treated for HNC who require prosthetic rehabilitation. Participants were divided into two groups: irradiated and non-irradiated. Stimulated and unstimulated salivary flow, pH, and perceived comfort sensation were assessed at three time points: T0 (prior to prosthesis placement), T1 (1 month after prosthesis placement), and T6 (6 months after prosthesis placement). Outcomes were compared between the two groups across all time points.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences were observed in unstimulated salivary flow between T0 and T6, while stimulated salivary flow showed significant differences between T0 and T1, T0 and T6, and T1 and T6. No significant differences were found in salivary pH or perceived comfort. However, 85% of participants reported greater comfort 6 months after prosthetic rehabilitation. Both irradiated and non-irradiated patients demonstrated improvements in salivary flow and perceived oral comfort, although no significant differences were observed between groups. A significant change in pH was detected only in the non-irradiated group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study demonstrated a significant increase in both unstimulated and stimulated salivary flow, with no significant differences between groups. Salivary pH increased significantly in the non-irradiated group compared to the irradiated one. Both groups reported improvements in perceived comfort, although no significant differences were observed between T1 and T6.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145287398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Faisal D Al-Qarni, Alanoud Albarrak, Shahad Alhamid, Sultan Akhtar, Soban Q Khan, Mohammed Al-Nefaiee, Yousif Al-Dulaijan, Mohammed M Gad
Purpose: To date, no evidence exists regarding the optimal technique/material to repair three-dimensional (3D) printed interim fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs). This study aimed to investigate different repair techniques/materials and compare their impact on the fracture strength of repaired 3D-printed IFDPs.
Materials and methods: A total of 208 3-unit IFDP specimens (n = 8) were printed using two materials (NextDent or ASIGA). One group had no surface treatment (control), while the other two groups were treated with alumina blasting and etch-primer (EP) and then repaired using flowable composite resin or Multilink in a customized putty index. Repaired specimens were thermocycled (5000 cycles) and then loaded onto a universal testing machine until fracture, and the fracture strength was recorded in newtons (N). ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test and t-test were used for data analysis (α = 0.05).
Results: All repaired 3D-printed IFDPs exhibited lower fracture loads compared to intact specimens (p < 0.001). Repairs made with composite resin resulted in a superior fracture load than Multilink (p < 0.001). Alumina-blasting and EP treatment surface treatments significantly increased the fracture strength of repaired NextDent IFDPs compared with untreated groups (p < 0.001). EP surface treatment did not influence the repair of ASIGA specimens (p > 0.05).
Conclusion: The type of repair material significantly influences the repair strength. Repair using a composite showed the highest strength. Surface treatment (mechanical or chemical) increased repair strength for NextDent specimens. ASIGA specimens were not affected by chemical surface treatment, while mechanical treatment positively influenced repair strength.
{"title":"Fracture strength of repaired 3D-printed interim fixed dental prostheses: In vitro comparison of repair material type and surface treatment.","authors":"Faisal D Al-Qarni, Alanoud Albarrak, Shahad Alhamid, Sultan Akhtar, Soban Q Khan, Mohammed Al-Nefaiee, Yousif Al-Dulaijan, Mohammed M Gad","doi":"10.1111/jopr.70038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.70038","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To date, no evidence exists regarding the optimal technique/material to repair three-dimensional (3D) printed interim fixed dental prostheses (IFDPs). This study aimed to investigate different repair techniques/materials and compare their impact on the fracture strength of repaired 3D-printed IFDPs.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 208 3-unit IFDP specimens (n = 8) were printed using two materials (NextDent or ASIGA). One group had no surface treatment (control), while the other two groups were treated with alumina blasting and etch-primer (EP) and then repaired using flowable composite resin or Multilink in a customized putty index. Repaired specimens were thermocycled (5000 cycles) and then loaded onto a universal testing machine until fracture, and the fracture strength was recorded in newtons (N). ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test and t-test were used for data analysis (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All repaired 3D-printed IFDPs exhibited lower fracture loads compared to intact specimens (p < 0.001). Repairs made with composite resin resulted in a superior fracture load than Multilink (p < 0.001). Alumina-blasting and EP treatment surface treatments significantly increased the fracture strength of repaired NextDent IFDPs compared with untreated groups (p < 0.001). EP surface treatment did not influence the repair of ASIGA specimens (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The type of repair material significantly influences the repair strength. Repair using a composite showed the highest strength. Surface treatment (mechanical or chemical) increased repair strength for NextDent specimens. ASIGA specimens were not affected by chemical surface treatment, while mechanical treatment positively influenced repair strength.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145276379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}