Abstract Studies have highlighted numerous benefits of ozone therapy in the field of medicine and dentistry, including its antimicrobial efficacy against various pathogenic microorganisms, its ability to modulate the immune system effectively, reduce inflammation, prevent hypoxia, and support tissue regeneration. However, its effects on dental extraction healing remain to be elucidated. Objective Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effects of systemically administered ozone (O3) at different doses in the healing of dental extraction sockets in rats. Methodology To this end, 72 Wistar rats were randomly divided into four groups after extraction of the right upper central incisor: Group C – control, no systemic treatment; Group OZ0.3 – animals received a single dose of 0.3 mg/kg O3; Group OZ0.7 – a single dose of 0.7 mg/kg O3; and Group OZ1.0 – a single dose of 1.0 mg/kg O3, intraperitoneally. In total, six animals from each group were euthanized at 7, 14, and 21 days after the commencement of treatment. Bone samples were harvested and further analyzed by descriptive histology, histomorphometry, and immunohistochemistry for osteocalcin (OCN) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP) protein expression. Results All applied doses of O3 were shown to increase the percentage of bone tissue (PBT) after 21 days compared to group C. After 14 days, the OZ0.7 and OZ1.0 groups showed significantly higher PBT when compared to group C. The OZ1.0 group presented the most beneficial results regarding PBT among groups, which denotes a dose-dependent response. OCN immunostaining was higher in all groups at 21 days. However, after seven and 14 days, the OZ1.0 group showed a significant increase in OCN immunostaining compared to C group. No differences in TRAP+ osteoclasts were found between groups and time points. Conclusion Therefore, O3 therapy at higher doses might be beneficial for bone repair of the alveolar socket following tooth extraction. dentistry microorganisms effectively inflammation hypoxia regeneration However elucidated Therefore O (O3 end 7 incisor control treatment OZ03 OZ OZ0 3 OZ0. 03 0 0. mgkg mg kg OZ07 07 OZ10 OZ1 OZ1. 10 1 1. intraperitoneally total 2 histology histomorphometry (OCN tartrateresistant tartrate resistant TRAP (TRAP expression (PBT dosedependent dependent response points (O

Resumo O objetivo deste estudo foi realizar uma avaliação comparativa de dois diferentes substitutos ósseos xenogênicos na consolidação óssea de defeitos ósseos de tamanho crítico (Ø = 5 mm) criados em calvária de ratos. Trinta animais foram randomizados em 3 grupos: no grupo controle (n=10), os defeitos foram preenchidos com coágulos sanguíneos; no grupo BO (n=10), os defeitos foram preenchidos com substituto ósseo medular bovino (Bio-Oss®) e no grupo BF (n=10), os defeitos foram preenchidos com substituto ósseo cortical bovino (Bonefill®). Todos os defeitos foram cobertos com membrana absorvível. Cinco animais de cada grupo foram eutanasiados aos 30 e 45 dias de pós-operatório, logo após foram realizadas análises histomorfométricas e imuno-histoquímicas. A histomorfometria foi utilizada para mensurar a porcentagem de neoformação óssea na área total do defeito original enquanto a imunohistoquímica avaliou a expressão de imunomarcadores ósseos para proteína morfogenética óssea 2/4 (BMP2/4), osteocalcina (OCN) e fosfatase ácida resistente ao tartarato (TRAP). Todos os dados foram analisados estatisticamente com nível de significância de 5%. Os resultados demonstraram que o grupo BO apresentou maior formação óssea em comparação ao grupo BF aos 30 dias (P<0,05). No entanto, não houve diferença estatística entre os grupos controle e BO aos 30 dias (P>0,05). As expressões de OCN e BMP2/4 foram maiores no grupo BO aos 45 dias em comparação ao BF aos 30 e 45 dias respectivamente (P<0,05). Concluiu-se que mesmo com a diferença da alta expressão de proteínas relacionadas a formação óssea, ambos os biomateriais não demonstraram diferenças na indução de formação óssea após 45 dias pós-operatório. Ø mm ratos n=10, n10 n n=10 , 10 (n=10) sanguíneos BioOss® BioOss Bio Oss® Oss (Bio-Oss® Bonefill®. Bonefill Bonefill® . (Bonefill®) absorvível 4 pósoperatório, pósoperatório pós operatório, operatório pós-operatório imunohistoquímicas. imunohistoquímicas imuno histoquímicas. histoquímicas imuno-histoquímicas 24 2 2/ BMP2/4, BMP24 BMP BMP2 (BMP2/4) (OCN TRAP. TRAP (TRAP) 5% P<0,05. P005 P P<0,05 0 05 (P<0,05) entanto P>0,05. P>0,05 (P>0,05) BMP2/ Concluiuse Concluiu se pósoperatório. operatório. n1 n=1 1 (n=10 (Bio-Oss (Bonefill® (BMP2/4 (TRAP P00 P<0,0 (P<0,05 P>0,0 (P>0,05 n= (n=1 (Bonefill (BMP2/ P0 P<0, (P<0,0 P>0, (P>0,0 (n= (BMP2 P<0 (P<0, P>0 (P>0, (n (BMP P< (P<0 P> (P>0 (P< (P> (P

Abstract The purpose of this study was to provide an evaluation of two different xenogeneic bone substitutes in bone healing of critical-sized bone defects (Ø =5mm) created in rats calvaria. Thirty animals were randomized into 3 groups with one of the following treatments. In the control group (n=10), the defects were filled with blood clots; BO group (n=10), the defects were filled with bovine medullary bone substitute (Bio-Oss®); BF group (n=10), the defects were filled with bovine cortical bone substitute (Bonefill®). All defects were covered with an absorbable membrane. Five animals from each group were euthanized at 30 and 45 days, subsequently histomorphometrical and immunohistochemical analyses were performed. The histomorphometry was used to measure the percentage of new bone formation in the total area of the defect while the immunohistochemistry evaluated the expression of bone immunomarkers for bone morphogenetic protein 2/4 (BMP2/4), osteocalcin (OCN) and tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase (TRAP). Data was statistically analyzed with a 5% significance level. The results demonstrated that the BO group showed greater bone formation compared to the BF group at 30 days (P<0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference between the control and BO groups at 30 days (P>0.05). The expression of BMP2/4 and OCN were higher in the BO group at 45 days compared to the BF at 30 and 45 days respectively (P<0.05). In conclusion, even with the higher expression of proteins related to bone formation, there was no difference in new bone formation at 45 days when both anorganic bovine xenogenous grafts were evaluated. criticalsized critical sized Ø =5mm 5mm mm calvaria treatments n=10, n10 n n=10 , 10 (n=10) clots BioOss® BioOss Bio Oss® Oss (Bio-Oss®) Bonefill®. Bonefill Bonefill® . (Bonefill®) membrane 4 performed 24 2 2/ BMP2/4, BMP24 BMP BMP2 (BMP2/4) (OCN tartrateresistant tartrate resistant TRAP. TRAP (TRAP) 5 level P<0.05. P005 P P<0.05 0 05 (P<0.05) However P>0.05. P>0.05 (P>0.05) BMP2/ conclusion n1 n=1 1 (n=10 (Bio-Oss® (Bonefill® (BMP2/4 (TRAP P00 P<0.0 (P<0.05 P>0.0 (P>0.05 n= (n=1 (Bio-Oss (Bonefill (BMP2/ P0 P<0. (P<0.0 P>0. (P>0.0 (n= (BMP2 P<0 (P<0. P>0 (P>0. (n (BMP P< (P<0 P> (P>0 (P< (P> (P

Aggressive periodontitis is characterized by non-contributory medical history, rapid attachment loss and bone destruction and familial aggregation of cases. Aggressive periodontitis (both localized and generalized) is usually diagnosed in a young population. This is frequently the age that an orthodontic care is provided to this population. The aim of the present paper is to draw guidelines for periodontal evaluation and monitoring prior to and during active orthodontic treatment. Strict adherence to these guidelines as a routine protocol for periodontal examination prior, during and following orthodontic treatment may dramatically decrease the severity and improve the prognosis of patients with aggressive periodontitis in orthodontic clinics.

An implant-supported restoration offers a predictable treatment for tooth replacement. Reported success rates for dental implants are high. Nevertheless, failures that mandate immediate implant removal do occur. The consequences of implant removal jeopardize the clinician's efforts to accomplish satisfactory function and esthetics. For the patient, this usually involves further cost and additional procedures. The aim of this paper is to describe different methods and treatment modalities to deal with dental implant failure. The main topics for discussion include identifying the failing implant, implants replacing failed implants at the exact site, and the use of other restorative options.When an implant fails, a tailor made treatment plan should be provided to each patient according to all relevant variables. Patients should be informed regarding all possible treatment modalities following implant failure and give their consent to the most appropriate treatment option for them.