Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility and mechanical properties of two commercially available and one experimental periodontal dressing materials. The cytotoxicity of Periobond ® , Barricaid ® and one experimental periodontal dressing based on Exothane ® 8 monomer was tested on 3T3/NIH mouse fibroblast. Genotoxicity was assessed by micronuclei formation, and cell alterations were analyzed using light microscopy. Both biological assays were performed using the eluate obtained from specimens after 24, 72, or 168 hours of incubation. Mechanical characterization was assessed through the ultimate tensile strength and the water sorption and solubility tests. The significance level of α = 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses. All the materials promoted a cell viability lower than 60% in all evaluated times. In general, the cell viability was significantly reduced after 72 and 168h of specimens’ incubation. Considering the factor material, there were not statistical differences in the cell viability (p = 0.156). The genotoxicity was not statistically significant among the groups in the different periods of time (p > 0.05). Differences in the ultimate tensile strength values were not statistically significant different among the groups (p = 0.125). Periobond ® showed the higher water sorption values (p < 0.001). Regarding solubility, there were no statistical differences between the groups (p = 0.098). All the periodontal dressing materials evaluated in this study exerted a cytotoxic effect against mouse fibroblasts, and their toxicity became more evident over time. Among the materials evaluated, the experimental light-cure type has shown overall similar properties to the commercial references.

AIM: To identify the predominant causes and types of maxillofacial trauma in Brazil. METHODS: Reports of corporal trauma (7,536) between 2009-2010 in the Brazilian Institute of Forensic Medicine were analyzed as to the presence of maxillofacial traumas. Victims' demographic and trauma characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: Data were submitted to chi-square test and to multivariate Poisson regression. 778 reports referred maxillofacial trauma. Most victims were men (50.8%) around 27.6 years. Main causes were physical aggression (88.1%) and traffic accidents (6.7%). The most affected extraoral area was the middle third (60.7%). Risk for trauma in the middle third was significantly higher among patients aged 61-75 (RR 1.32), and non-white patients (black-skinned RR 1.21; brown-skinned RR 1.18); while falls were associated with trauma in the lower third (RR1.79). CONCLUSIONS: Violence was the main cause of maxillofacial trauma. Prevention of interpersonal violence may be a key element to prevent maxillofacial trauma.