Journal of Dental Medicine

Background and Aims: A suitable restorative material must have acceptable mechanical properties. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of conventional acidic drinks on the micro-hardness of two dental resins.
Materials and Methods: 48 samples of each of P60 and G-aenial composites were prepared and randomly divided into six groups: Coca-Cola, Fanta, yoghurt drinks, soft beer, Sprites and control groups. The study was in 3 steps: after one day in distilled water and after one day and one week of immersion in beverages per day
(6 hours). The Vickers micro-hardness was then evaluated. Finally, data were analyzed by, t-tests, ANOVA and Tukey tests.
Resultes: Comparing the results between the two groups, a significant difference between the two composite was found. After one day in the water, the average micro-hardness for P60 was of 27.12 (kgf/mm²) and 16.51 (kgf/mm²) for G-aenial amount and these differences were found statistically significant (P=0.0001). For the
6-hour maintenance interval, the average micro-hardness between P60 and G-aenial was statistically significant (P=0.0001). For 42 hours, the average micro-hardness ranged between P60 and G-aenial that were statistically significant (P=0.0004). The stiffness of the P60 composite after 42 hours’ storage in soft beer significantly decreased compared with the control group (P=0.03). G-aenial composite hardness after 42 hours of soaking in the Coca-Cola was reduced significantly compared to yogurt drinks (P=0.02).
Conclusion: As a result, the hardness of P60 composite was higher than that of G-aenial. The hardness of both composites reduced in acidic drinks after one week.

Background and Aims: Despite significant advancements in rehabilitation of edentulism with implants, complications such as implant failure before and after prosthetic loading remain concerns. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency of dental implant failure before and after prosthetic loading in some of Yazd dental clinics between 2018 and 2023.
Materials and Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, 1060 patients’ files from three public dental clinics were reviewed. These patients were treated by dental implants between April 2018 and June 2023. The collected data included patients’ age and gender, implant diameter, brand, and placement site, type of prosthesis, and fixture failure after surgical and prosthetic phases. Data were statistically analyzed by independent t-tests and chi-square tests.
Results: The mean age of patients was 55.25 ± 12.37 years and 56.3% were female. The frequency of overall implant failure was 3.4%. The implant failure rate after prosthetic loading was 2.8% in females and 2.3% in males (P=0.47). This rate was 2% and 1.9% for maxillary and mandibular implants, respectively (P=0.5). This amount was 2.4% in molar areas,1.7% and 1.8% in premolar and anterior regions, respectively  (P=0.8). Implant failure rate was 1.3% in overdentures, 5.9% in cement-retained, and 3.2% in screw-retained prosthesis (P<0.001). This amount for implants with a diameter less than 3.75 mm was 2.6% and for those with a diameter more than 4.5 mm was 3.7% (P<0.001). Implants with a diameter less than 3.75 mm had a 2.6% failure rate, whereas those with a diameter greater than 4.5 mm had a 3.7% failure rate (P<0.001). The implants failure rate was 1.6% for Dio brand and 2.5% for Dentis (P=0.5).
Conclusion: The overall implant failure rate in this study was 3.4%, of which 1.5% occurred before and 1.9% occurred after prosthetic loading. The frequency of implant failure after loading was significantly associated with the implant diameter and prosthesis type. This was not related to the patient's gender, implant site, or the implant brand.