Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@retorquere
Created October 17, 2021 20:46
Show Gist options
  • Star 0 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 0 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save retorquere/28460e68156b89b82e6cc00e1792adde to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save retorquere/28460e68156b89b82e6cc00e1792adde to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
This file has been truncated, but you can view the full file.
PRAGMA foreign_keys=OFF;
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
CREATE TABLE itemTypes ( itemTypeID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, typeName TEXT, templateItemTypeID INT, display INT DEFAULT 1 );
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(1,'note',NULL,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(2,'book',NULL,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(3,'bookSection',2,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(4,'journalArticle',NULL,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(5,'magazineArticle',NULL,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(6,'newspaperArticle',NULL,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(7,'thesis',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(8,'letter',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(9,'manuscript',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(10,'interview',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(11,'film',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(12,'artwork',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(13,'webpage',NULL,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(14,'attachment',NULL,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(15,'report',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(16,'bill',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(17,'case',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(18,'hearing',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(19,'patent',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(20,'statute',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(21,'email',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(22,'map',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(23,'blogPost',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(24,'instantMessage',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(25,'forumPost',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(26,'audioRecording',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(27,'presentation',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(28,'videoRecording',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(29,'tvBroadcast',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(30,'radioBroadcast',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(31,'podcast',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(32,'computerProgram',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(33,'conferencePaper',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(34,'document',NULL,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(35,'encyclopediaArticle',NULL,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypes VALUES(36,'dictionaryEntry',NULL,1);
CREATE TABLE itemTypesCombined ( itemTypeID INT NOT NULL, typeName TEXT NOT NULL, display INT DEFAULT 1 NOT NULL, custom INT NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (itemTypeID));
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(1,'note',0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(2,'book',2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(3,'bookSection',2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(4,'journalArticle',2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(5,'magazineArticle',2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(6,'newspaperArticle',2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(7,'thesis',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(8,'letter',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(9,'manuscript',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(10,'interview',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(11,'film',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(12,'artwork',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(13,'webpage',0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(14,'attachment',0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(15,'report',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(16,'bill',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(17,'case',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(18,'hearing',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(19,'patent',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(20,'statute',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(21,'email',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(22,'map',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(23,'blogPost',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(24,'instantMessage',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(25,'forumPost',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(26,'audioRecording',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(27,'presentation',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(28,'videoRecording',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(29,'tvBroadcast',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(30,'radioBroadcast',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(31,'podcast',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(32,'computerProgram',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(33,'conferencePaper',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(34,'document',2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(35,'encyclopediaArticle',1,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypesCombined VALUES(36,'dictionaryEntry',1,0);
CREATE TABLE fieldFormats ( fieldFormatID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, regex TEXT, isInteger INT);
INSERT INTO fieldFormats VALUES(1,'.*',0);
INSERT INTO fieldFormats VALUES(2,'[0-9]*',1);
INSERT INTO fieldFormats VALUES(3,'[0-9]{4}',1);
CREATE TABLE fields ( fieldID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, fieldName TEXT, fieldFormatID INT, FOREIGN KEY (fieldFormatID) REFERENCES fieldFormats(fieldFormatID));
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(1,'url',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(2,'rights',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(3,'series',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(4,'volume',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(5,'issue',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(6,'edition',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(7,'place',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(8,'publisher',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(10,'pages',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(11,'ISBN',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(12,'publicationTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(13,'ISSN',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(14,'date',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(15,'section',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(18,'callNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(19,'archiveLocation',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(21,'distributor',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(22,'extra',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(25,'journalAbbreviation',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(26,'DOI',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(27,'accessDate',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(28,'seriesTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(29,'seriesText',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(30,'seriesNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(31,'institution',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(32,'reportType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(36,'code',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(40,'session',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(41,'legislativeBody',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(42,'history',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(43,'reporter',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(44,'court',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(45,'numberOfVolumes',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(46,'committee',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(48,'assignee',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(50,'patentNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(51,'priorityNumbers',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(52,'issueDate',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(53,'references',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(54,'legalStatus',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(55,'codeNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(59,'artworkMedium',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(60,'number',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(61,'artworkSize',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(62,'libraryCatalog',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(63,'videoRecordingFormat',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(64,'interviewMedium',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(65,'letterType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(66,'manuscriptType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(67,'mapType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(68,'scale',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(69,'thesisType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(70,'websiteType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(71,'audioRecordingFormat',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(72,'label',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(74,'presentationType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(75,'meetingName',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(76,'studio',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(77,'runningTime',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(78,'network',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(79,'postType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(80,'audioFileType',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(81,'versionNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(82,'system',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(83,'company',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(84,'conferenceName',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(85,'encyclopediaTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(86,'dictionaryTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(87,'language',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(88,'programmingLanguage',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(89,'university',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(90,'abstractNote',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(91,'websiteTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(92,'reportNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(93,'billNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(94,'codeVolume',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(95,'codePages',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(96,'dateDecided',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(97,'reporterVolume',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(98,'firstPage',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(99,'documentNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(100,'dateEnacted',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(101,'publicLawNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(102,'country',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(103,'applicationNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(104,'forumTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(105,'episodeNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(107,'blogTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(108,'type',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(109,'medium',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(110,'title',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(111,'caseName',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(112,'nameOfAct',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(113,'subject',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(114,'proceedingsTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(115,'bookTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(116,'shortTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(117,'docketNumber',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(118,'numPages',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(119,'programTitle',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(120,'issuingAuthority',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(121,'filingDate',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(122,'genre',NULL);
INSERT INTO fields VALUES(123,'archive',NULL);
CREATE TABLE fieldsCombined ( fieldID INT NOT NULL, fieldName TEXT NOT NULL, label TEXT, fieldFormatID INT, custom INT NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (fieldID));
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(3,'series',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(4,'volume',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(8,'publisher',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(10,'pages',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(12,'publicationTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(14,'date',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(110,'title',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(115,'bookTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(22,'extra',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(2,'rights',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(5,'issue',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(13,'ISSN',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(25,'journalAbbreviation',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(26,'DOI',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(87,'language',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(90,'abstractNote',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(1,'url',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(6,'edition',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(7,'place',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(11,'ISBN',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(15,'section',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(18,'callNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(19,'archiveLocation',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(21,'distributor',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(27,'accessDate',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(28,'seriesTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(29,'seriesText',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(30,'seriesNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(31,'institution',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(32,'reportType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(36,'code',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(40,'session',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(41,'legislativeBody',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(42,'history',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(43,'reporter',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(44,'court',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(45,'numberOfVolumes',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(46,'committee',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(48,'assignee',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(50,'patentNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(51,'priorityNumbers',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(52,'issueDate',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(53,'references',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(54,'legalStatus',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(55,'codeNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(59,'artworkMedium',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(60,'number',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(61,'artworkSize',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(62,'libraryCatalog',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(63,'videoRecordingFormat',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(64,'interviewMedium',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(65,'letterType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(66,'manuscriptType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(67,'mapType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(68,'scale',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(69,'thesisType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(70,'websiteType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(71,'audioRecordingFormat',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(72,'label',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(74,'presentationType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(75,'meetingName',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(76,'studio',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(77,'runningTime',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(78,'network',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(79,'postType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(80,'audioFileType',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(81,'versionNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(82,'system',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(83,'company',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(84,'conferenceName',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(85,'encyclopediaTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(86,'dictionaryTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(88,'programmingLanguage',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(89,'university',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(91,'websiteTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(92,'reportNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(93,'billNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(94,'codeVolume',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(95,'codePages',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(96,'dateDecided',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(97,'reporterVolume',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(98,'firstPage',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(99,'documentNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(100,'dateEnacted',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(101,'publicLawNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(102,'country',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(103,'applicationNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(104,'forumTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(105,'episodeNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(107,'blogTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(108,'type',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(109,'medium',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(111,'caseName',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(112,'nameOfAct',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(113,'subject',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(114,'proceedingsTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(116,'shortTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(117,'docketNumber',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(118,'numPages',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(119,'programTitle',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(120,'issuingAuthority',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(121,'filingDate',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(122,'genre',NULL,NULL,0);
INSERT INTO fieldsCombined VALUES(123,'archive',NULL,NULL,0);
CREATE TABLE itemTypeFields ( itemTypeID INT, fieldID INT, hide INT, orderIndex INT, PRIMARY KEY (itemTypeID, orderIndex), UNIQUE (itemTypeID, fieldID), FOREIGN KEY (itemTypeID) REFERENCES itemTypes(itemTypeID), FOREIGN KEY (fieldID) REFERENCES fields(fieldID));
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,59,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,61,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,87,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,116,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,123,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,19,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,62,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,18,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,2,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(12,22,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(14,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(14,27,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(14,1,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,71,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,28,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,4,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,45,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,7,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,72,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,14,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,77,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,87,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,11,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,116,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,1,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,27,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,2,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(26,22,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,93,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,36,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,94,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,15,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,95,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,41,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,40,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,42,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,14,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,87,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,1,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,27,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,116,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,2,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(16,22,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,107,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,70,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,1,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,27,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,87,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,116,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,2,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(23,22,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,3,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,30,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,4,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,45,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,6,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,7,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,8,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,14,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,118,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,87,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,11,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,116,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,1,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,27,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,123,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,19,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,62,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,18,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,2,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(2,22,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,115,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,3,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,30,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,4,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,45,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,6,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,7,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,8,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,14,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,10,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,87,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,11,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,116,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,1,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,27,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,123,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,19,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,62,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,18,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,2,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(3,22,0,22);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,111,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,44,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,96,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,117,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,43,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,97,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,98,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,42,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,2,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(17,22,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,28,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,81,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,82,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,7,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,83,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,88,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,11,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,2,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,27,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(32,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,14,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,114,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,84,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,7,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,8,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,4,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,10,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,3,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,87,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,26,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,11,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,116,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,1,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,27,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,123,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,19,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,62,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,18,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,2,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(33,22,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,86,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,3,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,30,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,4,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,45,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,6,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,7,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,8,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,14,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,10,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,87,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,11,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,116,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,1,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,27,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,123,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,19,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,62,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,18,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,2,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(36,22,0,22);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,8,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,14,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,87,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,116,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,123,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,19,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,62,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,18,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,2,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(34,22,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,113,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,14,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,116,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,1,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,27,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,87,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,2,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(21,22,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,85,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,3,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,30,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,4,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,45,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,6,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,7,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,8,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,14,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,10,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,11,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,116,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,1,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,27,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,87,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,123,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,19,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,62,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,18,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,2,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(35,22,0,22);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,21,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,14,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,122,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,63,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,77,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,87,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,116,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,1,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,27,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,123,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,19,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,62,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,18,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,2,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(11,22,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,104,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,79,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,87,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,116,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,1,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,27,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,2,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(25,22,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,46,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,7,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,8,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,45,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,99,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,10,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,41,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,40,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,42,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,14,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,87,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,116,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,1,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,27,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,2,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(18,22,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,14,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,87,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,116,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,1,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,27,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,2,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(24,22,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,14,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,64,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,87,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,116,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,123,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,19,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,62,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,18,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,2,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(10,22,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,12,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,4,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,5,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,10,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,14,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,3,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,28,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,29,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,25,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,87,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,26,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,13,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,116,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,1,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,27,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,123,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,19,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,62,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,18,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,2,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(4,22,0,22);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,65,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,14,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,87,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,116,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,123,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,19,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,62,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,18,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,2,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(8,22,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,12,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,4,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,5,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,14,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,10,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,87,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,13,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,116,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,1,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,27,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,123,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,19,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,62,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,18,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,2,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(5,22,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,66,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,7,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,118,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,87,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,116,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,1,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,27,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,123,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,19,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,62,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,18,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,2,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(9,22,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,67,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,68,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,28,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,6,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,7,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,8,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,14,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,11,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,116,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,1,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,27,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,123,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,19,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,62,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,18,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,2,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(22,22,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,12,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,7,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,6,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,14,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,15,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,10,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,87,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,116,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,13,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,2,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(6,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,7,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,102,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,48,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,120,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,50,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,121,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,10,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,103,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,51,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,52,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,53,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,54,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,87,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,116,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,1,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,27,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,2,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(19,22,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,28,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,105,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,80,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,77,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,87,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,116,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,2,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(31,22,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,74,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,14,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,7,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,75,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,87,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,116,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,2,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(27,22,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,119,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,105,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,71,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,7,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,78,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,14,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,77,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,2,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(30,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,92,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,32,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,28,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,7,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,31,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,14,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,10,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,2,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(15,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,112,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,36,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,55,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,101,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,100,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,10,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,15,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,40,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,42,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,87,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,116,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,1,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,27,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,2,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(20,22,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,69,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,89,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,7,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,14,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,118,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,87,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,116,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,1,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,27,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,123,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,19,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,62,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,18,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,2,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(7,22,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,119,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,105,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,63,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,7,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,78,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,14,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,77,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,2,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(29,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,63,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,28,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,4,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,45,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,7,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,76,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,14,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,77,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,87,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,11,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,116,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,1,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,27,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,123,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,19,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,62,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,18,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,2,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(28,22,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,91,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,70,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,116,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,87,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,2,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFields VALUES(13,22,0,10);
CREATE TABLE itemTypeFieldsCombined ( itemTypeID INT NOT NULL, fieldID INT NOT NULL, hide INT, orderIndex INT NOT NULL, PRIMARY KEY (itemTypeID, orderIndex), UNIQUE (itemTypeID, fieldID));
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,1,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,2,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,3,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,4,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,6,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,7,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,8,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,11,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,14,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,18,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,19,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,22,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,27,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,30,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,45,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,62,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,87,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,116,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,118,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(2,123,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,1,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,2,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,3,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,4,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,6,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,7,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,8,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,10,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,11,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,14,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,18,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,19,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,22,0,22);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,27,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,30,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,45,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,62,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,87,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,115,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,116,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(3,123,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,1,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,2,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,3,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,4,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,5,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,10,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,12,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,13,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,14,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,18,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,19,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,22,0,22);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,25,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,26,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,27,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,28,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,29,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,62,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,87,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,116,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(4,123,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,1,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,2,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,4,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,5,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,10,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,12,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,13,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,14,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,18,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,19,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,22,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,27,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,62,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,87,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,116,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(5,123,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,2,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,6,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,7,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,10,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,12,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,13,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,14,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,15,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,87,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,116,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(6,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,1,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,2,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,7,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,14,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,18,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,19,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,22,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,27,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,62,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,69,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,87,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,89,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,116,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,118,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(7,123,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,2,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,14,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,18,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,19,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,22,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,62,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,65,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,87,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,116,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(8,123,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,1,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,2,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,7,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,18,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,19,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,22,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,27,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,62,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,66,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,87,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,116,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,118,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(9,123,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,2,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,14,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,18,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,19,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,22,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,62,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,64,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,87,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,116,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(10,123,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,1,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,2,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,14,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,18,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,19,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,21,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,22,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,27,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,62,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,63,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,77,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,87,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,116,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,122,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(11,123,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,2,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,18,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,19,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,22,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,59,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,61,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,62,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,87,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,116,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(12,123,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,2,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,22,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,70,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,87,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,91,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(13,116,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(14,1,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(14,27,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(14,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,2,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,7,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,10,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,14,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,28,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,31,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,32,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,92,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(15,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,1,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,2,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,14,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,15,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,22,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,27,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,36,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,40,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,41,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,42,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,87,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,93,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,94,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,95,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(16,116,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,2,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,22,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,42,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,43,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,44,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,96,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,97,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,98,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,111,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(17,117,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,1,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,2,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,7,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,8,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,10,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,14,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,22,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,27,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,40,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,41,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,42,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,45,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,46,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,87,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,99,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(18,116,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,1,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,2,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,7,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,10,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,22,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,27,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,48,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,50,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,51,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,52,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,53,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,54,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,87,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,102,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,103,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,116,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,120,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(19,121,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,1,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,2,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,10,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,15,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,22,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,27,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,36,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,40,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,42,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,55,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,87,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,100,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,101,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,112,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(20,116,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,1,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,2,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,14,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,22,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,27,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,87,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,113,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(21,116,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,1,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,2,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,6,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,7,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,8,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,11,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,14,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,18,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,19,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,22,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,27,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,28,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,62,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,67,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,68,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,116,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(22,123,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,1,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,2,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,22,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,27,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,70,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,87,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,107,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(23,116,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,1,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,2,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,14,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,22,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,27,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,87,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(24,116,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,1,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,2,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,22,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,27,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,79,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,87,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,104,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(25,116,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,1,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,2,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,4,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,7,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,11,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,14,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,22,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,27,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,28,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,45,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,71,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,72,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,77,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,87,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,116,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(26,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,2,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,7,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,14,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,22,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,74,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,75,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,87,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(27,116,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,1,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,2,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,4,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,7,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,11,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,14,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,18,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,19,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,22,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,27,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,28,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,45,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,62,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,63,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,76,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,77,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,87,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,116,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(28,123,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,2,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,7,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,14,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,63,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,77,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,78,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,105,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,119,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(29,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,2,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,7,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,14,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,27,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,71,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,77,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,78,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,87,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,105,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,119,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(30,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,2,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,22,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,28,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,77,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,80,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,87,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,105,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(31,116,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,1,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,2,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,7,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,11,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,14,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,18,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,19,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,22,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,27,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,28,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,62,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,81,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,82,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,83,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,88,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,116,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(32,123,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,1,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,2,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,3,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,4,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,7,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,8,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,10,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,11,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,14,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,18,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,19,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,22,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,26,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,27,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,62,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,84,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,87,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,114,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,116,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(33,123,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,1,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,2,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,8,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,14,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,18,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,19,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,22,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,27,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,62,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,87,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,116,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(34,123,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,1,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,2,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,3,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,4,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,6,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,7,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,8,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,10,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,11,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,14,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,18,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,19,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,22,0,22);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,27,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,30,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,45,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,62,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,85,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,87,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,116,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(35,123,0,17);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,1,0,15);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,2,0,21);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,3,0,3);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,4,0,5);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,6,0,7);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,7,0,8);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,8,0,9);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,10,0,11);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,11,0,13);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,14,0,10);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,18,0,20);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,19,0,18);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,22,0,22);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,27,0,16);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,30,0,4);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,45,0,6);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,62,0,19);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,86,0,2);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,87,0,12);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,90,0,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,110,0,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,116,0,14);
INSERT INTO itemTypeFieldsCombined VALUES(36,123,0,17);
CREATE TABLE baseFieldMappings ( itemTypeID INT, baseFieldID INT, fieldID INT, PRIMARY KEY (itemTypeID, baseFieldID, fieldID), FOREIGN KEY (itemTypeID) REFERENCES itemTypes(itemTypeID), FOREIGN KEY (baseFieldID) REFERENCES fields(fieldID), FOREIGN KEY (fieldID) REFERENCES fields(fieldID));
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(12,109,59);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(26,109,71);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(26,8,72);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(16,60,93);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(16,4,94);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(16,10,95);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(23,12,107);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(23,108,70);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(3,12,115);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(17,110,111);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(17,14,96);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(17,60,117);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(17,4,97);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(17,10,98);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(32,8,83);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(33,12,114);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(36,12,86);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(21,110,113);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(35,12,85);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(11,8,21);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(11,108,122);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(11,109,63);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(25,12,104);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(25,108,79);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(18,60,99);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(10,109,64);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(8,108,65);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(9,108,66);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(22,108,67);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(19,60,50);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(19,14,52);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(31,60,105);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(31,109,80);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(27,108,74);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(30,12,119);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(30,60,105);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(30,109,71);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(30,8,78);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(15,60,92);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(15,108,32);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(15,8,31);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(20,110,112);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(20,60,101);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(20,14,100);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(7,108,69);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(7,8,89);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(29,12,119);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(29,60,105);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(29,109,63);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(29,8,78);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(28,109,63);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(28,8,76);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(13,12,91);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappings VALUES(13,108,70);
CREATE TABLE baseFieldMappingsCombined ( itemTypeID INT, baseFieldID INT, fieldID INT, PRIMARY KEY (itemTypeID, baseFieldID, fieldID));
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(3,12,115);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(7,8,89);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(7,108,69);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(8,108,65);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(9,108,66);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(10,109,64);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(11,8,21);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(11,108,122);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(11,109,63);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(12,109,59);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(13,12,91);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(13,108,70);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(15,8,31);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(15,60,92);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(15,108,32);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(16,4,94);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(16,10,95);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(16,60,93);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(17,4,97);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(17,10,98);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(17,14,96);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(17,60,117);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(17,110,111);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(18,60,99);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(19,14,52);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(19,60,50);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(20,14,100);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(20,60,101);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(20,110,112);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(21,110,113);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(22,108,67);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(23,12,107);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(23,108,70);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(25,12,104);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(25,108,79);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(26,8,72);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(26,109,71);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(27,108,74);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(28,8,76);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(28,109,63);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(29,8,78);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(29,12,119);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(29,60,105);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(29,109,63);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(30,8,78);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(30,12,119);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(30,60,105);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(30,109,71);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(31,60,105);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(31,109,80);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(32,8,83);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(33,12,114);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(35,12,85);
INSERT INTO baseFieldMappingsCombined VALUES(36,12,86);
CREATE TABLE charsets ( charsetID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, charset TEXT UNIQUE);
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(1,'utf-8');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(2,'big5');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(3,'euc-jp');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(4,'euc-kr');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(5,'gb18030');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(6,'gbk');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(7,'ibm866');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(8,'iso-2022-jp');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(9,'iso-8859-2');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(10,'iso-8859-3');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(11,'iso-8859-4');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(12,'iso-8859-5');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(13,'iso-8859-6');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(14,'iso-8859-7');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(15,'iso-8859-8');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(16,'iso-8859-8-i');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(17,'iso-8859-10');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(18,'iso-8859-13');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(19,'iso-8859-14');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(20,'iso-8859-15');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(21,'iso-8859-16');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(22,'koi8-r');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(23,'koi8-u');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(24,'macintosh');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(25,'replacement');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(26,'shift_jis');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(27,'utf-16be');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(28,'utf-16le');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(29,'windows-874');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(30,'windows-1250');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(31,'windows-1251');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(32,'windows-1252');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(33,'windows-1253');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(34,'windows-1254');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(35,'windows-1255');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(36,'windows-1256');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(37,'windows-1257');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(38,'windows-1258');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(39,'x-mac-cyrillic');
INSERT INTO charsets VALUES(40,'x-user-defined');
CREATE TABLE fileTypes ( fileTypeID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, fileType TEXT UNIQUE);
INSERT INTO fileTypes VALUES(1,'webpage');
INSERT INTO fileTypes VALUES(2,'image');
INSERT INTO fileTypes VALUES(3,'pdf');
INSERT INTO fileTypes VALUES(4,'audio');
INSERT INTO fileTypes VALUES(5,'video');
INSERT INTO fileTypes VALUES(6,'document');
INSERT INTO fileTypes VALUES(7,'presentation');
CREATE TABLE fileTypeMimeTypes ( fileTypeID INT, mimeType TEXT, PRIMARY KEY (fileTypeID, mimeType), FOREIGN KEY (fileTypeID) REFERENCES fileTypes(fileTypeID));
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(1,'text/html');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(2,'image/');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(2,'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.graphics');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(2,'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.image');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(3,'application/pdf');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(4,'audio/');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(4,'x-pn-realaudio');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(4,'application/ogg');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(4,'application/x-killustrator');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(5,'video/');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(5,'application/x-shockwave-flash');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'text/plain');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/rtf');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/msword');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'text/xml');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/postscript');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/wordperfect5.1');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/x-latex');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/x-tex');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/x-kword');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/x-kspread');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/x-kchart');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.chart');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.database');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.formula');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.spreadsheet');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(6,'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(7,'application/powerpoint');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(7,'application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.presentation');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(7,'application/x-kpresenter');
INSERT INTO fileTypeMimeTypes VALUES(7,'application/vnd.ms-powerpoint');
CREATE TABLE creatorTypes ( creatorTypeID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, creatorType TEXT);
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(1,'author');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(2,'contributor');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(3,'editor');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(4,'translator');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(5,'seriesEditor');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(6,'interviewee');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(7,'interviewer');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(8,'director');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(9,'scriptwriter');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(10,'producer');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(11,'castMember');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(12,'sponsor');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(13,'counsel');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(14,'inventor');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(15,'attorneyAgent');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(16,'recipient');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(17,'performer');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(18,'composer');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(19,'wordsBy');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(20,'cartographer');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(21,'programmer');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(22,'artist');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(23,'commenter');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(24,'presenter');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(25,'guest');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(26,'podcaster');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(27,'reviewedAuthor');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(28,'cosponsor');
INSERT INTO creatorTypes VALUES(29,'bookAuthor');
CREATE TABLE itemTypeCreatorTypes ( itemTypeID INT, creatorTypeID INT, primaryField INT, PRIMARY KEY (itemTypeID, creatorTypeID), FOREIGN KEY (itemTypeID) REFERENCES itemTypes(itemTypeID), FOREIGN KEY (creatorTypeID) REFERENCES creatorTypes(creatorTypeID));
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(12,22,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(12,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(26,17,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(26,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(26,18,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(26,19,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(16,12,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(16,28,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(16,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(23,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(23,23,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(23,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(2,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(2,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(2,3,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(2,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(2,5,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(3,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(3,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(3,3,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(3,29,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(3,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(3,5,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(17,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(17,13,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(17,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(32,21,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(32,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(33,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(33,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(33,3,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(33,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(33,5,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(36,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(36,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(36,3,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(36,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(36,5,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(34,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(34,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(34,3,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(34,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(34,27,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(21,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(21,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(21,16,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(35,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(35,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(35,3,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(35,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(35,5,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(11,8,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(11,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(11,9,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(11,10,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(25,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(25,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(18,2,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(24,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(24,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(24,16,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(10,6,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(10,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(10,7,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(10,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(4,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(4,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(4,3,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(4,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(4,27,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(8,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(8,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(8,16,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(5,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(5,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(5,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(5,27,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(9,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(9,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(9,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(22,20,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(22,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(22,5,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(6,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(6,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(6,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(6,27,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(19,14,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(19,15,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(19,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(31,26,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(31,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(31,25,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(27,24,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(27,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(30,8,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(30,9,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(30,10,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(30,11,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(30,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(30,25,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(15,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(15,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(15,4,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(15,5,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(20,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(20,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(7,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(7,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(29,8,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(29,9,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(29,10,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(29,11,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(29,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(29,25,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(28,8,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(28,9,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(28,10,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(28,11,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(28,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(13,1,1);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(13,2,0);
INSERT INTO itemTypeCreatorTypes VALUES(13,4,0);
CREATE TABLE syncObjectTypes ( syncObjectTypeID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, name TEXT);
INSERT INTO syncObjectTypes VALUES(1,'collection');
INSERT INTO syncObjectTypes VALUES(2,'creator');
INSERT INTO syncObjectTypes VALUES(3,'item');
INSERT INTO syncObjectTypes VALUES(4,'search');
INSERT INTO syncObjectTypes VALUES(5,'tag');
INSERT INTO syncObjectTypes VALUES(6,'relation');
INSERT INTO syncObjectTypes VALUES(7,'setting');
CREATE TABLE version ( schema TEXT PRIMARY KEY, version INT NOT NULL);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('system',32);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('triggers',18);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('compatibility',6);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('globalSchema',11);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('userdata',111);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('delete',60);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('translators',1619778874);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('styles',1619778874);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('lastsync',1625065155);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('repository',1634503113);
INSERT INTO version VALUES('lastcheck',1634503113);
CREATE TABLE settings ( setting TEXT, key TEXT, value, PRIMARY KEY (setting, key));
INSERT INTO settings VALUES('account','localUserKey','6z7M0kXV');
INSERT INTO settings VALUES('client','lastCompatibleVersion','5.0.80');
INSERT INTO settings VALUES('globalSchema','data',X'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');
INSERT INTO settings VALUES('client','lastVersion','5.0.96.2');
INSERT INTO settings VALUES('account','username','better-bibtex');
INSERT INTO settings VALUES('account','userID',8230813);
CREATE TABLE syncedSettings ( setting TEXT NOT NULL, libraryID INT NOT NULL, value NOT NULL, version INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, synced INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, PRIMARY KEY (setting, libraryID), FOREIGN KEY (libraryID) REFERENCES libraries(libraryID) ON DELETE CASCADE);
CREATE TABLE items ( itemID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, itemTypeID INT NOT NULL, dateAdded TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, dateModified TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, clientDateModified TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, libraryID INT NOT NULL, key TEXT NOT NULL, version INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, synced INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, UNIQUE (libraryID, key), FOREIGN KEY (libraryID) REFERENCES libraries(libraryID) ON DELETE CASCADE);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(2,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'6STQAJ5F',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(3,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'26C2WGFB',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(4,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'KG9BBSIH',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(5,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'QTGB2CV3',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(6,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'4JQC7AVV',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(7,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'6B4BVUPB',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(8,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'DL3Z66XL',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(9,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'H42G99DU',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(10,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'LE24SIV8',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(11,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39','2018-03-04 10:57:39',1,'35FSBWQQ',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(12,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'TYI5I7IK',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(13,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'724KCUVT',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(14,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'EQVLQU4X',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(15,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'UA55M3CM',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(16,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'89Y97KPX',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(17,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'QTIDEZZN',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(18,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'V4NUGWXL',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(19,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'S3SBQZ7S',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(20,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'5D326Q2L',6,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(21,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'EVLDQIA6',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(22,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'9W5ZNN4Q',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(23,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'GYNDTSLC',11,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(24,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'2BFE5YX2',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(25,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'FDAJKTJE',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(26,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'978TRYD8',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(27,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'NFWZWFXH',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(28,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'GQ2MKAMD',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(29,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'LKMPYHPC',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(30,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'KVXJTA37',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(31,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'KTC8QXSN',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(32,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2019-12-16 22:01:56','2019-12-16 22:01:56',1,'TUAXBMBS',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(33,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'IXY4RD5S',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(34,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'5RZ384GA',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(35,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40','2018-03-04 10:57:40',1,'PLQUSTC4',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(36,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'KCT5VERU',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(37,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'FFHIXJQI',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(38,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'X7ARHEGE',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(39,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'IW28FR2U',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(40,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'CP6SJSEI',7,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(41,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'PU2849FP',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(42,3,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'6Q6828LG',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(43,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'DZSFR2KG',12,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(44,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'Z29JWD6I',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(45,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'T8XLU2LV',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(46,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'2NKRNUQN',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(47,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'G85BG3NK',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(48,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'9UU3GQ8G',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(49,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'8TIKGYE3',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(50,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'LFYS3RRV',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(51,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'U7SZ2FGA',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(52,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'4IWD5L5H',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(53,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'6JBLQL6G',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(54,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'Y2H4C7Z5',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(55,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'FLQ7MIPU',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(56,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'PQZ6GQHT',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(57,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'YZGE8PXC',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(58,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41','2018-03-04 10:57:41',1,'AABXNLAE',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(59,3,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'FTCMJ6KE',8,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(60,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'C2R7LNCK',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(61,3,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'7Z37BRP7',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(62,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'87M7GVPU',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(63,3,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'DGPEHR53',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(64,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'JQCBSM9W',13,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(65,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'T2VFNDU4',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(66,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'P963FRVV',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(67,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'FW6KKSXG',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(68,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'XWLER5F4',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(69,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'8H6PYDHA',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(70,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'8A2DBWAU',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(71,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'ZY9B5XMP',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(72,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'U28QU7GV',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(73,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'PK8SGZEI',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(74,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'D3Z77M9N',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(75,3,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'723JVELA',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(76,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'SXZVBV64',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(77,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'EJKS8NQD',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(78,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'M33DMJ6H',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(79,3,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'V8SQCER5',9,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(80,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'BUKNS4D6',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(81,3,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'FFXP4ID6',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(82,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42','2018-03-04 10:57:42',1,'LAHAWVHY',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(83,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'KCV8FITM',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(84,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'9TVWXPAH',14,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(85,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'5UKUSE3X',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(86,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'LC622J94',15,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(87,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'AMKRF9F6',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(88,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'FG9A8DWX',15,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(89,3,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'9M85N3UF',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(90,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'GIUXPZJY',15,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(91,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'ENM5QNUG',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(92,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'MUNDNRKH',15,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(93,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'QVUIXZ75',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(94,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'IC8XB227',15,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(95,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'BZXQV2UY',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(96,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'63QVHJEF',15,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(97,4,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'RD9FFUNK',10,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(98,1,'2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43','2018-03-04 10:57:43',1,'HRSG47JY',15,1);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(99,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'R95PHDWG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(100,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'ZTM4MES9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(101,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'SFKABRIB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(102,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'F8VHDHHV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(103,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'U99XLTXW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(104,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'MU54I9HL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(105,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'C3XVFVLT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(106,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'KBVJD63W',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(107,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'7M46MUHP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(108,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15','2021-10-17 20:05:15',1,'KRLN6VJ9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(109,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'YFTL8HH3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(110,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'YFMNYUT6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(111,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'B777E87I',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(112,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'RSEVJV2T',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(113,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'D92PSBEJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(114,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'7L3JWBB4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(115,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'6VNCQ4HW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(116,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'ZENYJE2D',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(117,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'99DN6GRX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(118,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'TAJ2MN48',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(119,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'MXK9PMNG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(120,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'P4LKJLB7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(121,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'TUQGWHQ8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(122,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'TRF6X5RG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(123,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'STIQMMC7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(124,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16','2021-10-17 20:05:16',1,'BGAY6ZTH',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(125,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'UHHHLS4H',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(126,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'VFCW4X47',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(127,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'8JDZ58I4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(128,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'LU6XS9DB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(129,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'I6WYVMGD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(130,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'9DSM8RMW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(131,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'9JM43UTP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(132,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'5AG645QR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(133,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'SLHHT54V',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(134,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'7KFNTHSM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(135,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'UKYT9IXL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(136,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'MSTAQ5T5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(137,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'8AHVNLWZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(138,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'DN45SVE8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(139,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17','2021-10-17 20:05:17',1,'KWZR7DHI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(140,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'I4I54QV8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(141,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'PECIICGG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(142,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'WCGX9VI7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(143,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'CX56K4MV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(144,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'AUNXEWYP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(145,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'MABVCA8Z',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(146,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'QFZVU972',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(147,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'UX3P2VLV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(148,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'RWM4XXCQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(149,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'9W9HMKUD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(150,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18','2021-10-17 20:05:18',1,'GJJE6L5Y',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(151,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'22WHX6X5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(152,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'CY4LP7RY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(153,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'4XFZTG4T',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(154,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'V4BGS34F',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(155,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'Q4ZUJMYU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(156,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'2MTSGKDT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(157,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'93YKRQSC',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(158,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'NI5T5YTR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(159,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'E8KJT23Z',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(160,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'HVGZLXT8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(161,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'EW3RUBQR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(162,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'3QJ8ZADS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(163,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'WUIQ9D52',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(164,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19','2021-10-17 20:05:19',1,'3ZYCQRZA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(165,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'MLDYX6AE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(166,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'Y4WBP8I4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(167,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'JCIRSRBK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(168,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'R3NG4JPD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(169,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'ESYCGKLP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(170,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'DNCF49PM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(171,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'C97RJEUA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(172,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'H96TUDKE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(173,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'L8MFHYLA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(174,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'7N42N67J',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(175,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'WILF3R92',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(176,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'ZEI23SL7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(177,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'2ERN594R',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(178,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'8YFIWB47',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(179,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'F3SYVQQ8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(180,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'4N8BMJZT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(181,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'XNJJHICN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(182,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20','2021-10-17 20:05:20',1,'AWQQR6XI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(183,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'KSYEVGR5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(184,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'TCSKGZZF',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(185,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'HYJSMHMY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(186,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'GLDRXXPE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(187,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'QZVVV4GM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(188,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'S4G2CMEJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(189,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'VZBAASIE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(190,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'M3YI8F63',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(191,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'V54GWPI5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(192,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'5CUFIURY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(193,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'BBVLCJNA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(194,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'6DTIA8J3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(195,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'5KRK3EU9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(196,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'KP6KSKMC',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(197,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'L8736KNH',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(198,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'G9YEAARQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(199,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'BZYALA2R',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(200,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'9QL5ZNUY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(201,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21','2021-10-17 20:05:21',1,'ZM73CTHC',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(202,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'GVYWTDPR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(203,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'4HCY69J2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(204,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'Z427H5A3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(205,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'8MI49YTI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(206,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'WS3P6VW8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(207,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'8PXMK38P',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(208,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'B5TGQ2UW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(209,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'6U8EZSY8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(210,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'YKPP49ZN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(211,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'ENUGJ2RX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(212,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'HDJ2AS9D',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(213,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'YQDCUNXG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(214,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'6N5PJYUU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(215,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'53ENAE25',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(216,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'559M5J3H',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(217,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'PTLCZPRV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(218,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'ZZ2P28AV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(219,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'CVEXUSWP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(220,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22','2021-10-17 20:05:22',1,'P6VCMSN9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(221,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'EBP5M7Y7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(222,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'WQ6FRWCU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(223,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'F2XK6NMS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(224,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'RLGTLNI9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(225,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'N49FFBBD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(226,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'FEDSVAEV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(227,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'ZQN552H7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(228,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'XN59B2JY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(229,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'JULWLBHX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(230,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'AKQJYBH3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(231,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'AD33XZHV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(232,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'F36UQP3X',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(233,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'T2X23QCV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(234,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'LLZP3VL3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(235,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'8MJKLJR8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(236,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'3TG87944',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(237,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'47C8GQMY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(238,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'SZV3JYQ7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(239,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'DW3MTGDG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(240,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23','2021-10-17 20:05:23',1,'VTCTH5P4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(241,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'VHRU639T',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(242,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'8TCZ98V5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(243,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'8L47QSWL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(244,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'82CTD79B',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(245,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'JEPWNITB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(246,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'FCJCEU8D',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(247,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'ULR6SUCL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(248,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'D2JZKR98',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(249,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'39PXA59G',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(250,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'TR2TUMD9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(251,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'KVCG9IQ5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(252,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'B65SFRE4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(253,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'A3IZ4LD4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(254,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'XCYQFNP7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(255,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'DFGJD4TH',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(256,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'ZD3SPKXB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(257,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'Z3WEQJ3R',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(258,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'C7W2QFGA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(259,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'FUGKHF6U',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(260,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24','2021-10-17 20:05:24',1,'IT3V57TT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(261,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'PW9L9HPV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(262,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'XE6IDRI2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(263,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'EJ4PLUS5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(264,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'EHTPN7YY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(265,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'5P48CY7H',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(266,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'4WAA2LRY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(267,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'5LX3PD6Z',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(268,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'DWH63Q7B',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(269,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'P2328QWY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(270,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'T2WR77VD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(271,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'3GBKDM6I',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(272,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'A9LCXM35',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(273,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'2UG57G45',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(274,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'WPMMUXKN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(275,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'T5CX45WJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(276,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'JDLC9NXY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(277,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'ILWN3GH8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(278,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25','2021-10-17 20:05:25',1,'K9INPB2I',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(279,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'EQUDD848',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(280,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'K4LL4PKK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(281,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'R9ECUQ83',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(282,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'I96Y45XS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(283,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'SGXAT3XQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(284,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'H5GYC4XV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(285,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'ERFEX3V5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(286,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'3N38QV65',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(287,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'VE2RT3I2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(288,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'AVF42I3Q',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(289,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'B8BTD5UV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(290,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'2Q84XTD6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(291,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'95TMELRM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(292,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'RU55NLQR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(293,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'LJLZDFR9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(294,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'9PJFUI3W',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(295,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'9ZLNQQ7K',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(296,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'KF2YVXWT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(297,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'XMA5EKKI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(298,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'5R6YKUK9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(299,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26','2021-10-17 20:05:26',1,'65A3RA9X',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(300,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'G4ZXGPUQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(301,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'XEGD4VPQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(302,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'H8HHRLVJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(303,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'WWMZVHD9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(304,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'4VAS8LVL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(305,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'LEE5LP6W',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(306,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'QSKCATQV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(307,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'9V4P8C6Q',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(308,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'M3MT9A6I',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(309,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'BYKU37ZE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(310,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'FUDLT45K',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(311,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'XCWSPG4R',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(312,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'LB75PHXQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(313,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'MWXXA3DX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(314,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'CF3FRD3L',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(315,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27','2021-10-17 20:05:27',1,'MWNW3L3B',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(316,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'KSRFDAJZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(317,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'K2AE382N',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(318,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'W8W9DE6K',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(319,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'MDBMNEXR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(320,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'MRZBKU4P',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(321,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'5R2Z26U5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(322,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'IYJQVGUL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(323,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'R7K4Y7FU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(324,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'I43SEIL3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(325,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'N236QTUY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(326,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'JDK5R3CG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(327,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'WCUUURU9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(328,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'MMH5J8KJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(329,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'3E2XGZU7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(330,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'PWRASSJ5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(331,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'P4TIPRER',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(332,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'US3FPQT7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(333,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'6CTJNA3Z',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(334,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'GWRE9UZZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(335,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28','2021-10-17 20:05:28',1,'5L8NE63N',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(336,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'QHHH28AT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(337,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'TVDB97EN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(338,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'58UHUQRV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(339,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'7PC8ABTK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(340,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'ZA5MIWS6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(341,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'WZ97ZFJV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(342,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'WETKWUJW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(343,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'VRJIQQN3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(344,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'BYJCVWLG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(345,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'GQ7X7WU9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(346,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'DSHRV6EM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(347,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'2ZGLSDI2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(348,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'PNCV2EWT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(349,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'ZAWRKEVY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(350,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'Y4T5NUEM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(351,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'ICVQ5SCB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(352,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'5X5RQ6PI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(353,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'42CIIKCK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(354,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29','2021-10-17 20:05:29',1,'VUSBLGUM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(355,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'N4UHI3AB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(356,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'TE97YDS6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(357,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'A9BYQ7YK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(358,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'8B843CTP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(359,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'HKBHTYR7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(360,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'NFA253AZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(361,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'FSWCUD6X',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(362,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'5EX63EIJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(363,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'2BH9QWEU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(364,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'NA4K5WLW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(365,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'JHMTAU3W',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(366,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'GT8N9ATF',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(367,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'S3SB2GV9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(368,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'LEQ6HYHP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(369,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'6HSKUMIX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(370,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'AI4E6IXR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(371,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'4HBWKSHL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(372,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'UZSLDR2Q',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(373,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'ACD8AGKM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(374,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'IFTX2B3I',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(375,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30','2021-10-17 20:05:30',1,'MW3XZKU2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(376,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'VFGVF6GP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(377,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'ZU5J6DKX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(378,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'L3MRKP7U',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(379,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'4ES8ANS5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(380,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'YZYMV5YK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(381,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'43FV3KNV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(382,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'8NVICMTI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(383,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'NBPLXHBS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(384,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'4UVQ3NQY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(385,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'UZA4XLNB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(386,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'29RSBEKQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(387,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'DAYQRQTV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(388,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'U82HNVKS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(389,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'GDF97MAB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(390,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'EUX7SAKE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(391,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'89CB5JK8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(392,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'4482M7LB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(393,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31','2021-10-17 20:05:31',1,'T33AFTVJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(394,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'349IIGSL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(395,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'NMSB6TJE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(396,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'K726R7IS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(397,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'39RZCKJY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(398,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'2YZJTWRT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(399,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'I388JD69',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(400,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'NF7W5ZBT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(401,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'KZ75H2UG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(402,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'UQNP634L',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(403,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'DPKRG4Z6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(404,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'5QFH7DFU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(405,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'A8MFG8CS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(406,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'42WCRRAI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(407,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'CKT29MV6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(408,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'FXJZ52TT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(409,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'7GIW4N6A',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(410,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32','2021-10-17 20:05:32',1,'MM8T46E9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(411,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'FRPZZHFE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(412,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'D7BDG7DN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(413,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'8TWW23LN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(414,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'MKUHLXGR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(415,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'5A77E9JU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(416,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'49PSZYPW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(417,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'ULGK225I',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(418,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'NVVPKL4F',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(419,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'YXLZJE6K',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(420,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'IXCNKT27',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(421,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'ABRGL2YE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(422,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'2HATG2JF',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(423,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'M4TPGLJ8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(424,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'KH4UF4IH',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(425,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'2IXHW46H',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(426,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'QFEPPQRA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(427,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33','2021-10-17 20:05:33',1,'CIU9XNXG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(428,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'RN9ZL3Y6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(429,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'CE7CWG6W',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(430,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'JR4J7JVP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(431,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'9AVHS8QT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(432,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'CK4H29U4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(433,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'DIML5CTB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(434,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'VIKWZPHK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(435,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'ZETP7MUG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(436,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'4IZ86R82',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(437,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'BLZ4GXHL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(438,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'BCGH2ZUP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(439,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'4W5V8F26',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(440,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'WLHSSWDW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(441,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'NWU7GV2F',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(442,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'UZXICMTI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(443,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'7JMBJYC4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(444,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'ZBQIEFUL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(445,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'F3UA8HBU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(446,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34','2021-10-17 20:05:34',1,'KBB7DDSS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(447,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'XYRJ4XV3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(448,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'GR4YWJ5P',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(449,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'AICFKNVC',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(450,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'KJGZ6FTA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(451,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'C69233AB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(452,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'JKRBVQCI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(453,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'QALZBREA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(454,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'Y7ZIBQLX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(455,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'RCSXG6C5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(456,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'LGMHV97C',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(457,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'RNH8AJMT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(458,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'KFCF9QE4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(459,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'JHUBWD4G',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(460,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'4HNQ7A5T',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(461,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'UBGS4LLP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(462,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'XDW65Z2B',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(463,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35','2021-10-17 20:05:35',1,'YZX9VR7Z',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(464,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'KBLFINHF',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(465,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'88J6454F',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(466,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'WK2SRWHQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(467,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'QXQMU43C',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(468,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'92YXH5FJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(469,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'5AS6TVKU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(470,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'82ZT9N9U',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(471,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'B7QNKXX6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(472,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'25SWBUBZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(473,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'R2B32A8C',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(474,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'WMNYABKP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(475,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'DXF5UKMS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(476,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'S5GN9VVM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(477,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'HWZDGP8J',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(478,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'T4TMJJEY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(479,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'VBY5A3VY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(480,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'GZ9BRKXS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(481,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'48B3WC8X',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(482,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'3K2TD3F8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(483,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36','2021-10-17 20:05:36',1,'WAMF3KXE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(484,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'AD6FRTZD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(485,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'NS3JF3ZM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(486,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'6ZIUCBXD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(487,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'M2NQF657',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(488,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'VK65CJ2B',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(489,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'WU8JZFMN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(490,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'B2FNPP4S',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(491,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'F7HZCJ8K',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(492,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'WI65XRNI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(493,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'QDAJKIDR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(494,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'8GJ3BMDX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(495,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'DY9SPBG3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(496,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'RNKYU3UI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(497,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'EGG7BXDK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(498,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'FDRYWVBC',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(499,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'4EYW8BB8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(500,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'EEGFELFV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(501,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37','2021-10-17 20:05:37',1,'G2CRDJBA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(502,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'NC6Z59XZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(503,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'LTH3KP5W',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(504,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'HYSMUMEN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(505,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'SXTG343R',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(506,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'S42VDG3U',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(507,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'LUEVDBC3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(508,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'AQ6K2UYF',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(509,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'SPD8GUXG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(510,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'QNC8WYZ4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(511,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'9MY3EVBX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(512,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'U4PWNXGV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(513,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'EYQ9ZGAQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(514,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'D5EWGIVJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(515,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'DKSL8GMA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(516,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'LL8L2HUS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(517,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'3PBTC8FM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(518,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'ESEKRN3G',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(519,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'AB22CNUA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(520,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38','2021-10-17 20:05:38',1,'9ZPK77Y8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(521,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'6JHY5J6S',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(522,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'Y7GNFS7B',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(523,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'3WKE6JWA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(524,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'2ZW8G9PG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(525,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'EYUJQCKU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(526,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'WYK4LCL2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(527,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'CSZBZRY2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(528,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'XQIVF5H5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(529,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'7XPRURV5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(530,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'SFIWY2LF',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(531,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'NEG7RA9P',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(532,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'45QEBKGY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(533,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'NFSJKS5S',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(534,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'VITDZ2N8',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(535,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'X99I8UHX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(536,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'WMNBLFZW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(537,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'KCEIQ8SG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(538,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'JBJIGBSL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(539,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39','2021-10-17 20:05:39',1,'MJ6XAPJN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(540,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'W9QC8C9L',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(541,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'DYDA5D7Q',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(542,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'Q43WYGKT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(543,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'DIW38ISS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(544,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'G4B9PTPE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(545,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'8HWMVD3L',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(546,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'KSI9D2VZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(547,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'XRY4PUIL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(548,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'ZDAWGMEX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(549,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'I9XM93RW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(550,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'KKRBYUSB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(551,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'4HFN6NMX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(552,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'24R5AIYK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(553,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'RW7D2LD5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(554,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'DBXJMXSI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(555,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'M6A9ZRVV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(556,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'LS93N8Y3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(557,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'3C3Z74JB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(558,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'6NMSZN8F',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(559,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40','2021-10-17 20:05:40',1,'IQQJUL37',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(560,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'MYV9RVMF',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(561,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'8C2INVTN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(562,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'NS6B3XYR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(563,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'IJUGLTIA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(564,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'FBTDL8L4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(565,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'BU7KEFFH',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(566,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'CFRW6S37',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(567,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'TNVHUZE6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(568,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'ZLRP4U94',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(569,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'NQFC4X8M',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(570,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'NGFLIXQ2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(571,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'8LAG67Q3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(572,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'RVJF32DJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(573,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'G9SY95XU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(574,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'YNQVNHR9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(575,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'AVPWI22N',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(576,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'URUCQXLV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(577,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'9B55THHW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(578,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41','2021-10-17 20:05:41',1,'89PZIEJG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(579,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'SXQ6FJ57',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(580,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'654VQZFR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(581,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'MKFQEN85',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(582,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'WSPD2XRN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(583,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'97DKHMZV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(584,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'QTVL6VUS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(585,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'FSIPNGRR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(586,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'K9E2QUYA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(587,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'DCYDMXG6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(588,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'R7IVSS3J',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(589,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'YZDTGJZN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(590,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42','2021-10-17 20:05:42',1,'LLVXTPBC',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(591,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'B4IBQ8P2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(592,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'V49K2UMX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(593,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'JGCK2QHG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(594,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'F6V96UBX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(595,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'64AISTEV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(596,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'XJ69ARR4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(597,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'7SYIJU9W',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(598,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'QSDWH2KD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(599,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'86H99P4I',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(600,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'8446PYE3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(601,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'XHCZT83P',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(602,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'FJ6ZKZVN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(603,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'FGJUPX3H',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(604,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'P7SG443H',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(605,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'WAXR8D35',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(606,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43','2021-10-17 20:05:43',1,'I5CICNLR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(607,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'6AKKBKRD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(608,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'ARUJ34CC',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(609,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'SXU5TK35',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(610,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'87PQ526C',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(611,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'IECFIY27',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(612,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'ZZ5QNFI2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(613,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'78E728P7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(614,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'QT89NQYR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(615,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'67IYJ3L4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(616,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'RSPB9N65',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(617,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'WJVY58X9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(618,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'BUQWH7AP',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(619,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'UIVT4DDG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(620,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'5BNBQW46',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(621,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'W98P9E4K',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(622,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'UVQHC8GJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(623,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'GZDU8HWJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(624,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44','2021-10-17 20:05:44',1,'C4776XBW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(625,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'T8YZ7TVE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(626,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'Y4AX6QBN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(627,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'UECR9XC7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(628,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'SJYESMV5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(629,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'GZ65VYVH',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(630,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'HJSR8VKK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(631,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'CQPCFU48',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(632,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'B4RPMMC4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(633,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'RYD3GMAM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(634,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'H8NW6PS9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(635,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'WFZHJEKW',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(636,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'MJ2QSLRQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(637,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'66KYYGB6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(638,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'RSXB9XHA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(639,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'NN8XGS7I',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(640,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'3QQLF66A',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(641,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'YRV4R9UI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(642,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'WAJF6PUK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(643,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45','2021-10-17 20:05:45',1,'UCSWQ2W6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(644,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'CYKVQL7U',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(645,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'8A9MVZVM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(646,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'IKVYUSUN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(647,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'MHBDZMFB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(648,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'C5Q3D57L',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(649,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'Y4SFHTHT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(650,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'6GCZTKPV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(651,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'J63EEJQM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(652,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'MVXJDNU4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(653,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'6MJJY952',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(654,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'3QSEAJIB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(655,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'L7BHTJKH',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(656,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'ILV4TK28',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(657,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'SEE54UEB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(658,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'LGUT9P57',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(659,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'IBEBTH8R',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(660,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'4GMPP66F',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(661,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'7CWQUKBQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(662,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'WTY3HHZA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(663,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46','2021-10-17 20:05:46',1,'M5LRIT55',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(664,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'WG8C3EEI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(665,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'NM3T5MMZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(666,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'HS6EIGNB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(667,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'4VQ7FXLJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(668,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'RNBXQYAJ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(669,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'YRMP2Y2Z',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(670,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'R8LKXTKV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(671,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'FA726B63',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(672,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'B34JQ3UR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(673,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'5QWMHAUQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(674,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'YQMJUXVX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(675,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'TM3EBEAE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(676,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'W632QW3A',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(677,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'2GBDQGLA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(678,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'9GQ5DNUL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(679,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'F48XFJYK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(680,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'CSTI35S9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(681,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'PYHK6N9W',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(682,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'6B2745BU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(683,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47','2021-10-17 20:05:47',1,'93KYXCTI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(684,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'GF3KPHAA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(685,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'GU6BCQTV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(686,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'3Q6KHAJQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(687,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'PJPREMBQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(688,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'WI38LFTC',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(689,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'LV2QUTAA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(690,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'MGGSR7AS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(691,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'XR9G4B6E',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(692,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'X3TMVTTN',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(693,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'2R7AJLIB',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(694,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'JTEE7WMK',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(695,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'EYR687AZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(696,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'MKD9P78L',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(697,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'H47GUT86',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(698,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'TEWNC5GX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(699,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'2HNFBMGM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(700,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48','2021-10-17 20:05:48',1,'AKNPL7B3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(701,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'5JXNTQHZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(702,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'4A4BSI3V',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(703,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'X22YRD5Z',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(704,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'DLTUTSAX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(705,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'2MVDIU6A',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(706,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'JUXRW6VT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(707,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'MSQJ8S84',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(708,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'9JLW2FG7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(709,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'HBEXCAXQ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(710,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'K7QS4XG5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(711,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'RXHD5FZ2',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(712,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'GP6SMCCZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(713,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'8VFA4JF3',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(714,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'6FJ5MHDM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(715,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'LURUBAIA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(716,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'2NMWLCCA',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(717,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'JIC7YMDI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(718,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'Q8ICMHYV',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(719,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49','2021-10-17 20:05:49',1,'F55EJYZ6',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(720,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'YJJWSFZE',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(721,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'YDNZFXJU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(722,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'FW7KJMNG',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(723,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'VLNS2BVU',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(724,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'VG85223T',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(725,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'SWRRYEGR',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(726,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'Q8GI83IL',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(727,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'SULGBKR4',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(728,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'XJ5DL6FD',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(729,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'NJEGKKLX',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(730,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'Q8IAGG49',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(731,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'NG8HFJU5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(732,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'Y6VBRTBT',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(733,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'BQTAMYXS',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(734,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'BJVG6SLY',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(735,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'3XCPF5H9',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(736,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'YGKXH4QI',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(737,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'96L6I3LM',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(738,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50','2021-10-17 20:05:50',1,'3JV4QZDZ',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(739,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51',1,'RJIEDJ68',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(740,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51',1,'B4KP7QL7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(741,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51',1,'VJIMPCM7',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(742,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51',1,'CE2BLPI5',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(743,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51',1,'EMF72938',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(744,4,'2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51','2021-10-17 20:05:51',1,'DJHURAFH',0,0);
INSERT INTO items VALUES(745,14,'2021-10-17 20:06:26','2021-10-17 20:06:26','2021-10-17 20:06:26',1,'TY5HDAN5',0,0);
CREATE TABLE itemDataValues ( valueID INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, value UNIQUE);
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(2,'7');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(3,'187–202');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(4,'Israel Journal of Mathematics');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(5,'1969-00-00 1969');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(6,'Stable theories');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(7,'6');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(8,'298–300');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(9,'Journal of Combinatorial Theory');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(10,'Note on a min-max problem of Leo Moser');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(11,'2');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(12,'69–118');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(13,'Annals of Mathematical Logic');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(14,'1970-00-00 1970');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(15,'Finite diagrams stable in power');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(16,'35');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(17,'73–82');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(18,'Journal of Symbolic Logic');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(19,'On theories $T$ categorical in $|T|$');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(20,'8');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(21,'75–79');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(22,'On languages with non-homogeneous strings of quantifiers');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(23,'34');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(24,'541–545');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(25,'Pacific Journal of Mathematics');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(26,'A note on Hanf numbers');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(27,'83–84');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(28,'On the cardinality of ultraproduct of finite sets');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(29,'9');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(30,'193–198');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(31,'1971-00-00 1971');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(32,'Two cardinal compactness');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(33,'441–447');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(34,'Remark to “local definability theory” of Reyes');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(35,'3');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(36,'271–362');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(37,'Stability, the f.c.p., and superstability; model theoretic properties of formulas in first order theory');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(38,'36');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(39,'811–818');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(40,'On the number of non-almost isomorphic models of $T$ in a power');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(41,'473–487');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(42,'The number of non-isomorphic models of an unstable first-order theory');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(43,'10');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(44,'224–233');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(45,'Every two elementarily equivalent models have isomorphic ultrapowers');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(46,'4');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(47,'75–114');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(48,'1972-00-00 1972');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(49,'Saturation of ultrapowers and Keisler''s order');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(50,'37');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(51,'107–113');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(52,'Uniqueness and characterization of prime models over sets for totally transcendental first-order theories');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(53,'41');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(54,'247–261');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(55,'A combinatorial problem; stability and order for models and theories in infinitary languages');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(56,'12');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(57,'23–31');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(58,'For what filters is every reduced product saturated?');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(59,'247–267');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(60,'On models with power-like orderings');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(61,'207–214');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(62,'Separability properties of almost-disjoint families of sets');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(63,'531–537');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(64,'On power-like models for hyperinaccessible cardinals');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(65,'Lecture Notes in Mathematics');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(66,'303');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(67,'Springer, Berlin');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(68,'On problems of Moser and Hanson');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(69,'Graph theory and applications (Proc. Conf., Western Michigan Univ., Kalamazoo, Mich., 1972; dedicated to the memory of J. W. T. Youngs)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(70,'509–514');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(71,'Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(72,'A note on model complete models and generic models');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(73,'15');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(74,'167–174');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(75,'Journal of Combinatorial Theory. Ser. A');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(76,'1973-00-00 1973');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(77,'Some Counterexamples in the Partition Calculus');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(78,'14');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(79,'149–162');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(80,'First order theory of permutation groups');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(81,'437–441');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(82,'Errata to: First order theory of permutation groups');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(83,'262–277');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(84,'Notes on combinatorial set theory');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(85,'442–449');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(86,'Size direction games over the real line. III');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(87,'282–300');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(88,'There are just four second-order quantifiers');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(89,'16');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(90,'199–208');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(91,'1974-00-00 1974');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(92,'A substitute for Hall''s theorem for families with infinite sets');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(93,'Proc. Sympos. Pure Math.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(94,'XXV');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(95,'Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(96,'53–74');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(97,'The cardinals of simple models for universal theories');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(98,'Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium (Univ. California, Berkeley, Calif., 1971)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(99,'187–203');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(100,'Categoricity of uncountable theories');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(101,'Proceedings of the Tarski Symposium (Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif., 1971)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(102,'Colloq. Math. Soc. Janos Bolyai');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(103,'North-Holland, Amsterdam');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(104,'243–255');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(105,'On some general properties of chromatic numbers');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(106,'Topics in topology (Proc. Colloq., Keszthely, 1972)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(107,'50');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(108,'163–168');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(109,'The Hanf number of omitting complete types');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(110,'38');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(111,'399–404');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(112,'Weak definability in infinitary languages');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(113,'26');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(114,'948–961');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(115,'Canadian Journal of Mathematics. Journal Canadien de Mathematiques');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(116,'Sufficiency conditions for the existence of transversals');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(117,'251–259');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(118,'General Topology and Applications');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(119,'1977-00-00 1977');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(120,'Remarks on cardinal invariants in topology');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(121,'48');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(122,'207–213');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(123,'1975-00-00 1975');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(124,'A two-cardinal theorem');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(125,'10 (III)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(126,'1241–1256');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(127,'Graphs with prescribed asymmetry and minimal number of edges');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(128,'Infinite and finite sets (Colloq., Keszthely, 1973; dedicated to P. Erd\Hos on his 60th birthday)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(129,'314–328');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(130,'Differentially closed fields');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(131,'1257–1276');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(132,'Notes on partition calculus');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(133,'North Holland, Amsterdam');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(134,'1115–1126');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(135,'Some theorems on transversals');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(136,'102');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(137,'379–419');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(138,'Annals of Mathematics');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(139,'The monadic theory of order');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(140,'204');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(141,'342–364');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(142,'Transactions of the American Mathematical Society');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(143,'Generalized quantifiers and compact logic');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(144,'18');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(145,'243–256');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(146,'Infinite abelian groups, Whitehead problem and some constructions');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(147,'Lecture Notes in Math.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(148,'498');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(149,'384–402');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(150,'Existence of rigid-like families of abelian $p$-groups');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(151,'Model theory and algebra (A memorial tribute to Abraham Robinson)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(152,'20');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(153,'1–12');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(154,'Colouring without triangles and partition relation');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(155,'155–192');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(156,'1976-00-00 1976');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(157,'Δ-logics and generalized quantifiers');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(158,'127–148');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(159,'Categoricity in <sub>1</sub> of sentences in $L_ømega _1,ømega(Q)$');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(160,'62');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(161,'134–136');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(162,'A two-cardinal theorem and a combinatorial theorem');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(165,replace('Citation Key: bentley_academic_2011\ntex.xref= welker_andreas_1999','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(166,'© 2012 John Wiley & Sons A/S.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(167,'40');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(168,'1');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(169,'90-98');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(170,'Journal of clinical periodontology');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(171,'1600-051X 0303-6979');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(172,'2013-01-00 2013 Jan');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(173,replace('Number: 1\n167 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 23163915','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(174,'J Clin Periodontol');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(175,'10.1111/jcpe.12027');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(176,'eng');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(177,'OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the radiographic changes of the alveolar ridge following application of different ridge preservation techniques 6 months after tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four treatment modalities were randomly assigned in 40 patients: β-tricalcium-phosphate-particles with polylactid coating (β-TCP), demineralized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen covered with a collagen matrix (DBBM-C/CM), DBBM-C covered with an autogenous soft-tissue graft (DBBM-C/PG) and spontaneous healing (control). Cone-beam computed tomography scans were performed after treatment and 6 months later. RESULTS: After 6 months, the vertical changes ranged between -0.6 mm (-10.2%) for control and a gain of 0.3 mm (5.6%) for DBBM-C/PG on the lingual side, and between -2.0 mm (-20.9%) for β-TCP and a gain of 1.2 mm (8.1%) for DBBM-C/PG on the buccal side. The most accentuated ridge width changes were recorded 1 mm below the crest: -3.3 mm (-43.3%, C), -6.1 mm (-77.5%, β-TCP), -1.2 mm (-17.4%, DBBM-C/CM) and -1.4 mm (-18.1%, DBBM-C/PG). At all three levels, DBBM-C with either CM or PG was not significantly differing (p > 0.05), while most other differences between the groups reached statistical significance (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Application of DBBM-C, covered with CM or PG, resulted in less vertical and horizontal changes of the alveolar ridge as compared with controls 6 months after extraction.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(178,'Radiographic evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(179,'5');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(180,'489-495');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(181,'Clinical oral implants research');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(182,'1600-0501 0905-7161');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(183,'2009-05-00 2009 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(184,replace('Number: 5\n49 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 19302392','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(185,'Clin Oral Implants Res');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(186,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01694.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(187,'AIM: The aim of this randomized-controlled clinical study was to examine stability changes of palatal implants with chemically modified sandblasted/acid-etched (modSLA) titanium surface compared with a standard SLA surface, during the early stages of bone healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty adult volunteers were recruited and randomly assigned to the test group (modSLA surface) and to the control group (SLA surface). The test and control implants had the same microscopic and macroscopic topography, but differed in surface chemistry. To document implant stability changes resonance frequency analysis (RFA) was performed at implant insertion, at 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49, 56, 70 and 84 days thereafter. RFA values were expressed as an implant stability quotient (ISQ). RESULTS: Immediately after implant installation, the ISQ values for both surfaces tested were not significantly different and yielded mean values of 73.8+/-5 for the control and 72.7+/-3.9 for the test surface. In the first 2 weeks after implant installation, both groups showed only small changes and thereafter a decreasing trend in the mean ISQ levels. In the test group, after 28 days a tendency towards increasing ISQ values was observed and 42 days after surgery the ISQ values corresponded to those after implant insertion. For the SLA-control group, the trend changed after 35 days and yielded ISQ values corresponding to the baseline after 63 days. After 12 weeks of observation, the test surface yielded significantly higher stability values of 77.8+/-1.9 compared with the control implants of 74.5+/-3.9, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results support the potential for chemical modification of the SLA surface to positively influence the biologic process of osseointegration and to decrease the healing time.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(188,'Stability change of chemically modified sandblasted/acid-etched titanium palatal implants. A randomized-controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(189,'© 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(190,'320-325');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(191,'2015-03-00 2015 Mar');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(192,replace('Number: 3\n46 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 24438229','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(193,'10.1111/clr.12327');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(194,'OBJECTIVE: The aim of this in-vitro study was to compare the tolerance of surgical instruments in surgical guides produced by 3-D printing, without metal sleeves to a surgical guide with conventional metal sleeves from two different manufacturers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lateral movements of drill tips caused by tolerance between the sleeve and drill key and between the drill key and the drill were recorded after application of a standardized force to the surgical instruments. Four groups were tested: Control 1 (C1): metal sleeve from commercially available surgical system 1; Test 1 (T1): 3-D-printed sleeve for surgical system 1; Control 2 (C2): metal sleeve from commercially available surgical system 2. Test 2 (T2): 3-D-printed sleeve for surgical system 2. RESULTS: The mean total lateral movement was 0.75 mm (0.5-1.04 mm) in the C1 group and 0.91 mm (0.54-1.34 mm) in the C2 group. The mean amount of movement from tolerance between sleeve and drill-guiding key was 0.31 mm (range 0.22-0.41 mm) in C1 and 0.42 mm (range 0.29-0.56 mm) in C2. This lateral movement was in mean reduced by 0.24 mm (32%) in T1 and by 0.39 mm (43%) in T2 group. This reduction was statistically significant in both groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The tolerance of surgical instruments and the lateral movements of the drills were significantly reduced by the use of 3-D printing with reduced sleeve diameter. This reduction could improve the overall accuracy in computer-assisted template-guided implant dentistry. The lateral movement of the drill can be further reduced by using a shorter drill and a higher drill key. This can be considered during implant planning and CAD/CAM of surgical guides.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(195,'In-vitro evaluation of the tolerance of surgical instruments in templates for computer-assisted guided implantology produced by 3-D printing.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(196,'© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(197,'28');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(198,'e76-e83');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(199,'2017-07-00 2017 Jul');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(200,replace('Number: 7\n12 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 27206342','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(201,'10.1111/clr.12877');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(202,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to test whether or not the use of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel with or without the addition of an arginylglycylaspartic acid (RGD) sequence applied as a matrix in combination with hydroxyapatite/tricalciumphosphate (HA/TCP) results in similar peri-implant bone regeneration as traditional guided bone regeneration procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 12 beagle dogs, implant placement and peri-implant bone regeneration were performed 2 months after tooth extraction in the maxilla. Two standardized box-shaped defects were bilaterally created, and dental implants were placed in the center of the defects with a dehiscence of 4 mm. Four treatment modalities were randomly applied: i)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel, ii)HA/TCP mixed with a synthetic PEG hydrogel supplemented with an RGD sequence, iii)HA/TCP covered with a native collagen membrane (CM), iv)and no bone augmentation (empty). After a healing period of 8 or 16 weeks, micro-CT and histological analyses were performed. RESULTS: Histomorphometric analysis revealed a greater relative augmented area for groups with bone augmentation (43.3%-53.9% at 8 weeks, 31.2%-42.8% at 16 weeks) compared to empty controls (22.9% at 8 weeks, 1.1% at 16 weeks). The median amount of newly formed bone was greatest in group CM at both time-points. Regarding the first bone-to-implant contact, CM was statistically significantly superior to all other groups at 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Bone can partially be regenerated at peri-implant buccal dehiscence defects using traditional guided bone regeneration techniques. The use of a PEG hydrogel applied as a matrix mixed with a synthetic bone substitute material might lack a sufficient stability over time for this kind of defect.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(203,'Bone augmentation at peri-implant dehiscence defects comparing a synthetic polyethylene glycol hydrogel matrix vs. standard guided bone regeneration techniques.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(204,'2955-2963');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(205,'Tissue engineering. Part A');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(206,'1937-335X 1937-3341');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(207,'2009-10-00 2009 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(208,replace('Number: 10\n52 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 19320543','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(209,'Tissue Eng Part A');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(210,'10.1089/ten.TEA.2009.0009');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(211,'In medicine, N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) has a long track record as a constituent in medical devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration and thus can be considered as a safe and biologically inactive small chemical. In the present study, we report on the newly discovered pharmaceutical property of NMP in enhancing bone regeneration in a rabbit calvarial defect model in vivo. At the cellular level, the pharmaceutical effect of NMP was confirmed, in particular, in combination with bone morphogenetic protein (BMP)-2, because NMP increased early and late markers for maturation of preosteoblasts and human bone marrow-derived stem cells in vitro. When we used the multipotent cell line C2C12 without autologous BMP expression, NMP alone had no effect on alkaline phosphatase activity, a marker for osteogenic transdifferentiation. Nevertheless, in combination with low BMP-2 doses, alkaline phosphatase activity was more than eight times as great. Thus, the pharmaceutical NMP mode of action is that of an enhancer of BMP activity. The dependency of the effects of NMP on BMP was confirmed in preosteoblasts because noggin, an extracellular BMP inhibitor, suppressed NMP-induced increases in early markers for osteoblast maturation in vitro. At the molecular level, NMP was shown to have no effect on the binding of BMP-2 to the ectodomain of the high-affinity BMP receptor IA. However, NMP further increased the phosphorylation of p38 and Smad1,5,8 induced by BMP-2. Thus, the small chemical NMP enhances BMP activity by increasing the kinase activity of the BMP receptor complex for Smad1,5,8 and p38 and could be employed as a potent drug for bone tissue regeneration and engineering.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(212,'N-methyl pyrrolidone as a potent bone morphogenetic protein enhancer for bone tissue regeneration.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(213,'1456-1465');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(214,'2015-12-00 2015 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(215,replace('Number: 12\n15 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 25263966','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(216,'10.1111/clr.12491');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(217,'OBJECTIVES: The objective of this experiment was to test whether or not a synthetic bone substitute (SBS) was more effective than a polyethylene glycol hydrogel as a carrier material for bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) when attempting to regenerate bone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two identical, box-type dehiscence defects (4 × 4 mm buccolingually and apicocoronally, and 8 mm mesiodistally) were surgically prepared on buccal sides of the left and right edentulous ridge in five beagle dogs. Following implant placement, the defects either received (i) no graft, (ii) SBS+hydrogel, (iii) SBS+BMP-2 loaded hydrogel, and (iv) BMP-2-loaded SBS+hydrogel. The animals were euthanized at 8 weeks postsurgery. Radiographic and histomorphometric analyses were performed. RESULTS: The hydrogel alone was not able to stabilize the grafted bone particles at 8 weeks, and SBS+hydrogel group did not significantly differ from the control group in all volumetric measurements. On the other hand, extensively regenerated new bone was connected with most of the remaining SBS particles in the BMP-2 groups. The BMP-2 groups exhibited significantly greater new bone formation (10.65 mm(3) and 1.47 mm(2) in the SBS+BMP-2-loaded hydrogel group; 14.17 mm(3) and 0.93 mm(2) in the BMP-2-loaded SBS+hydrogel) than non-BMP-2 groups (1.27 mm(3) and 0.00 mm(2) in the control group; 2.01 mm(3) and 0.19 mm(2) in the SBS+hydrogel group) in volumetric and histomorphometric analyses (P < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between both BMP-2 groups. CONCLUSION: BMP-2 could yield enhanced bone regeneration in the critical-size peri-implant defects regardless of whether SBS or hydrogel is used for preloading, although the outcomes seem to be more reproducible with BMP-2 preloaded on SBS.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(218,'The efficacy of BMP-2 preloaded on bone substitute or hydrogel for bone regeneration at peri-implant defects in dogs.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(219,'173-179');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(220,'2011-02-00 2011 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(221,replace('Number: 2\n41 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 21092054','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(222,'10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01640.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(223,'AIM: to evaluate the local tolerance and efficiency of two experimental collagen matrices to increase the width of keratinized tissue. METHODS: in 12 pigs, two apically positioned flaps were prepared on both sides of the mandible. The denuded defect areas were randomly covered with one of two experimental porcine-derived collagen matrices (M1; M2). The other defect area was left untreated (control). At 1 and 6 months, clinical measurements for the width and thickness of the keratinized tissue were recorded. At 6 months, all animals were sacrificed. Descriptive and semi-quantitative histologic analyses were performed. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mac Nemar test were applied. RESULTS: the collagen matrices integrated well into the surrounding tissue without any signs of inflammation. The thickness and width of the keratinized tissue increased significantly over 6 months in all the groups, resulting in slightly more favourable results for M1 (compared with M2) with respect to the thickness and for M2 (compared with M1) with respect to the width of keratinized tissue. No statistically significant differences were observed for any of the evaluated clinical and histologic parameters among the three treatment modalities. CONCLUSIONS: within the limits of this animal study, the prototype collagen matrices can be used safely to increase the width of keratinized tissue.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(224,'Local tolerance and efficiency of two prototype collagen matrices to increase the width of keratinized tissue.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(225,'80');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(226,'609-617');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(227,'Journal of periodontology');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(228,'0022-3492');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(229,'2009-04-00 2009 Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(230,replace('Number: 4\n111 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 19335081','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(231,'J Periodontol');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(232,'10.1902/jop.2009.080323');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(233,'BACKGROUND: One way to evaluate various implant restorations is to measure the amount of bone change that occurs at the crestal bone. The objective of this study was to histologically evaluate the alveolar bone change around a bone-level, non-matching implant-abutment diameter configuration that incorporated a horizontal offset and a Morse taper internal connection. METHODS: The study design included extraction of all mandibular premolars and first molars in five canines. After 3 months, 12 dental implants were placed at three levels in each dog: even with the alveolar crest, 1 mm above the alveolar crest, and 1 mm below the alveolar crest. The implants were submerged on one side of the mandible. On the other side, healing abutments were exposed to the oral cavity (non-submerged). Gold crowns were attached 2 months after implant placement. The dogs were sacrificed 6 months postloading, and specimens were processed for histologic and histometric analyses. RESULTS: Evaluation of the specimens indicated that the marginal bone remained near the top of the implants under submerged and non-submerged conditions. The amount of bone change for submerged implants placed even with, 1 mm below, and 1 mm above the alveolar crest was -0.34, -1.29, and 0.04 mm, respectively (negative values indicate bone loss). For non-submerged implants, the respective values were -0.38, -1.13, and 0.19 mm. For submerged and non-submerged implants, there were significant differences in the amount of bone change among the three groups (P <0.05). The percentage of bone-to-implant contact for submerged implants was 73.3%, 71.8%, and 71.5%. For non-submerged implants, the respective numbers were 73.2%, 74.5%, and 76%. No significant differences occurred with regard to the percentage of bone contact. CONCLUSIONS: Minimal histologic bone loss occurred when dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters were placed at the bone crest and were loaded for 6 months in the canine. The bone loss was significantly less (five- to six-fold) than that reported for bone-level implants with matching implant-abutment diameters (butt-joint connections).');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(234,'Bone response to loaded implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters in the canine mandible.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(235,'79');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(236,'260-270');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(237,'2008-02-00 2008 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(238,replace('Number: 2\n62 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 18251640','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(239,'10.1902/jop.2008.070132');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(240,'BACKGROUND: It has been shown that different implant designs and different vertical implant positions have an influence on crestal bone levels. The aim of the present study was to evaluate radiographic crestal bone changes around experimental dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters placed submucosally or transmucosally at three different levels relative to the alveolar crest. METHODS: Sixty two-piece dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters were placed in edentulous spaces bilaterally in five foxhounds. The implants were placed submucosally or transmucosally in the left or the right side of the mandible. Within each side, six implants were randomly placed at three distinct levels relative to the alveolar crest. After 12 weeks, 60 crowns were cemented. Radiographs were obtained from all implant sites following implant placement, after crown insertion, and monthly for 6 months after loading. RESULTS: Radiographic analysis revealed very little bone loss and a slight increase in bone level for implants placed at the level of the crest or 1 mm above. The greatest bone loss occurred at implants placed 1 mm below the bone crest. No clinically significant differences regarding marginal bone loss and the level of the bone-to-implant contact were detected between implants with a submucosal or a transmucosal healing. CONCLUSIONS: Implants with non-matching implant-abutment diameters demonstrated some bone loss; however, it was a small amount. There was no clinically significant difference between submucosal and transmucosal approaches.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(241,'The influence of non-matching implant and abutment diameters on radiographic crestal bone levels in dogs.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(242,'612-617');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(243,'2014-06-00 2014 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(244,replace('Number: 6\n46 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 24593810','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(245,'10.1111/jcpe.12246');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(246,'OBJECTIVE: To volumetrically evaluate soft tissue changes of different ridge preservation techniques compared to spontaneous healing 6 months after tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In each of 40 patients, one single-rooted tooth was extracted and four treatment modalities were randomly assigned to the following groups (n = 10 each): A) ß-tricalcium-phosphate-particles with a polylactid coating (ß-TCP), B) demineralized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen covered with a collagen matrix (DBBM-C/CM), C) DBBM with 10% collagen covered with an autogenous soft tissue punch graft (DBBM-C/PG), D) spontaneous healing (control). Impressions were obtained before extraction and 6 months later, casts were digitized and volumetric changes at the buccal soft tissues were determined. One-way anova was performed and pair-wise Wilcoxon rank sum test with Bonferroni-Holm method was applied for comparison of differences between two groups. RESULTS: After 6 months, horizontal contour changes accounted for -1.7 ± 0.7 mm (A), -1.2 ± 0.5 mm (B), -1.2 ± 0.7 mm (C) and -1.8 ± 0.8 mm (D). None of the group comparisons reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Six months after tooth extraction all groups revealed a horizontal volume change in the buccal soft tissue contour. Application of DBBM-C/CM or DBBM-C/PG reduced the amount of volume resorption compared to ß-TCP or spontaneous healing without reaching statistically significant difference.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(247,'Labial soft tissue volume evaluation of different techniques for ridge preservation after tooth extraction: a randomized controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(248,'507-513');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(249,replace('Number: 5\n62 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 19302239','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(250,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01583.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(251,'PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to test whether or not implants associated with bone regeneration show the same survival and success rates as implants placed in native bone in patients requiring both forms of therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients (median age of 60.3 years, range 18-77.7 years) had been treated 5 years before the follow-up examination. Machined screw-type implants were inserted following one of two surgical procedures: (1) simultaneously with a guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedure, which involved grafting with xenogenic bone substitute material, autogenous bone or a mixture of the two and defect covering with a bio-absorbable collagen membrane (test) and (2) standard implantation procedure without bone regeneration (control). For data recording, one test and one control implant from each patient were assessed. Examination included measurements of plaque control record (PCR), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), width of keratinized mucosa (KM), frequency of situations with supra-mucosal location of the crown margin, implant survival assessment and radiographic examination. Radiographs were digitized to assess the marginal bone level (MBL). Differences between groups were tested using the one-sample t-test. The estimation of survival rate was based on Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: The follow-up period of the 34 GBR and 34 control implants ranged from 49 to 70 months (median time 57 months). Cumulative survival rates reached 100% for the GBR group and 94.1% for the control group without statistical significance. No statistically significant differences for clinical and radiographic parameters were found between the two groups regarding PCR, BOP, PPD, KM and MBL. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that, clinically, implants placed with concomitant bone regeneration did not performed differently from implants placed into native bone with respect to implant survival, marginal bone height and peri-implant soft tissue parameters.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(252,'Clinical and radiographic comparison of implants in regenerated or native bone: 5-year results.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(253,'219-225');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(254,'2017-02-00 2017 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(255,replace('Number: 2\n16 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 26856399','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(256,'10.1111/clr.12786');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(257,'AIM: To test whether implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) differs from implant placement without GBR regarding the change in marginal mucosal contour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 28 patients, single implants were placed >4 months after tooth extraction. Eighteen implants were completely surrounded by native bone, and no bone augmentation was performed. At 10 implant sites, bone defects and thin bone plates were grafted with deproteinized bovine-derived bone mineral and covered with collagen membrane. Impressions were taken prior to implant placement (baseline), at 3 months before abutment connection, at 6 months immediately after crown insertion, at 1 year, and at 3 years. Models were optically scanned and 3D images were superimposed for the evaluation of mucosal contour changes at the mid-buccal aspect. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was applied to detect differences. RESULTS: From baseline to 6 months, horizontal contour change at the level 1 and 2 mm apical to the mucosal margin measured 0.65 ± 0.74 mm and 0.55 ± 0.56 mm at sites without GBR, and 1.92 ± 0.87 mm and 1.76 ± 0.70 mm at sites with GBR (P < 0.05). In the period from baseline to 1 year, the corresponding values amounted to 0.81 ± 0.67 mm and 0.60 ± 0.55 mm in the group without GBR, and to 1.81 ± 0.86 mm and 1.37 ± 0.62 mm in the group with GBR (P < 0.05). From baseline to 6 months, mucosal margin moved 0.16 ± 0.49 mm in the coronal direction in the group without GBR and 0.82 ± 0.65 mm in the group with GBR (P < 0.05). In the period from baseline to 1 year, vertical change of mucosal margin amounted to 0.64 ± 0.54 mm in the group without GBR and to 1.17 ± 0.53 mm in the GBR group (P < 0.05). From 1 to 3 years, the mucosal contours remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: Implant placement with simultaneous GBR resulted in more gain of buccal soft tissue contour in comparison with implant placement without GBR. Abutment connection increased the contour of the marginal mucosa at the augmented and the nonaugmented sites. GBR procedure contributed more to the contour gain than did the abutment connection. The augmented and the nonaugmented ridges exhibited stable peri-implant mucosal contour over a 3-year period.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(258,'Guided bone regeneration and abutment connection augment the buccal soft tissue contour: 3-year results of a prospective comparative clinical study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(259,'19');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(260,'188-195');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(261,'0905-7161');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(262,replace('Number: 2\n105 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 18067602','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(263,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01431.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(264,'PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to test whether or not a synthetic matrix consisting of a polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel containing recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) combined with grafting materials enhances bone regeneration compared with grafting alone or empty control sites. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In each of 10 rabbits, four titanium cylinders were screwed in perforated slits made in the external cortical bones of the calvaria. The following four treatment modalities were randomly allocated: (1) empty control, (2) a combination of a PEG matrix and hydroxyapatite/tricalciumphosphate (HA/TCP) granules and a combination of a PEG matrix containing either 10 microg/ml (3) or 30 microg/ml (4) of BMP-2 and HA/TCP granules. After 8 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and ground sections were obtained for histological analysis. For statistical analysis repeated measures ANOVA and subsequent pairwise Student''s t-test were applied (P<0.01). RESULTS: Histomorphometric analysis showed an average area fraction of newly formed bone of 13.96+/-5.98% for the empty control, 15.16+/-7.95% for the PEG and HA/TCP group, 26.32+/-8.56% for the group containing 10 mug rhBMP-2/ml, and 30.15+/-7.63% for the group containing 30 microg rhBMP-2/ml. Statistical analysis revealed significantly more newly formed bone in the two rhBMP-2 groups compared with the PEG and HA/TCP group and with the empty control. Regarding the surface fraction of the HA/TCP graft particles covered with newly formed bone the addition of rhBMP-2 revealed a more than two-fold increase compared with cylinders containing HA/TCP granules without rhBMP-2. This difference reached statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that rhBMP-2 significantly enhances bone regeneration in rabbits when delivered by a synthetic matrix containing HA/TCP. This synthetic PEG matrix containing HA/TCP granules apparently fulfills a number of criteria required for an ideal carrier system for rhBMP-2.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(265,'Bone morphogenetic protein-2 enhances bone formation when delivered by a synthetic matrix containing hydroxyapatite/tricalciumphosphate.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(266,'442-448');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(267,replace('Number: 5\n81 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 19419446','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(268,'10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01381.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(269,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to volumetrically assess alterations of the ridge contour after socket preservation and buccal overbuilding. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In five beagle dogs, four extraction sites were subjected to one of the following treatments: Tx 1: The socket was filled with BioOss Collagen and covered with a free gingival autograft from the palate (SP). Tx 2: The buccal bone plate was forced into a buccal direction using a manual bone spreader and SP was performed. Tx 3: The buccal bone plate was forced into a buccal direction using a manual bone spreader; SP was performed. Tx 4: The socket was filled with BioOss Collagen and a combined free gingival/connective tissue graft was used to cover the socket and for buccal tissue augmentation. Impressions were obtained at baseline, 2 weeks and 4 months post-operatively. Casts were optically scanned and superimposed in one common coordinate system. Using digital image analysis, the volumetric differences per area among the different treatment time points and among the treatment groups were calculated. RESULTS: Four months after tooth extraction, no statistically significant differences with regard to the buccal volume per area could be assessed among the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Overbuilding the buccal aspect in combination with socket preservation is not a suitable technique to compensate for the alterations after tooth extraction.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(270,'Dimensional changes of the ridge contour after socket preservation and buccal overbuilding: an animal study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(271,'263-270');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(272,replace('Number: 3\n15 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 25267409','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(273,'10.1111/clr.12496');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(274,'AIM: To test whether or not the network structure and the addition of recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB) to a chemically cross-linked collagen matrix (CCM)- and a non-cross-linked collagen matrix (NCCM)-influenced tissue integration, angiogenesis, and matrix degradation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four treatment modalities were randomly assigned to four unconnected pouches in the back of 50 rats: (i) CCM-S (soaked in saline), (ii) CCM-P (plus rhPDGF-BB), (iii) NCCM-S (soaked in saline), and (iv) NCCM-P (plus rhPDGF-BB). The animals were sacrificed at 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 weeks. Descriptive histology and histomorphometric assessments were performed thereby evaluating matrix thickness, the number of vessels (angiogenesis), and connective tissue formation. Means and standard deviations were calculated. Robust linear mixed modeling was used to test the effect of group (NCCM vs CCM), rhPDGF-BB, and time point of sacrifice (2, 4, and 8 weeks). RESULTS: The thickness of NCCM groups revealed stability (range 440-570 μm) over 8 weeks, while the matrices were no longer present at 16 and 24 weeks. CCM matrices demonstrated a maximal thickness at 2 weeks (2689 ± 187 μm for CCM-S and 2693 ± 389 μm for CCM-P), a decrease of roughly 40% at 8 weeks, but were still present at 16 and 24 weeks. Vascularization of NCCM gradually increased over time with a peak (mean 17.0; SD 1.7) for NCCM-S and NCCM-P (22.0 ± 34.8) at 8 weeks. Angiogenesis in CCM was significantly more pronounced at early time points with a peak at 2 weeks (29.3 ± 16.8 for CCM-S and 30.3 ± 18.4 for CCM-P). No statistically significant effect of rhPDGF-BB was observed for any of the evaluated parameters (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The compact layer (in NCCM) delayed angiogenesis and connective tissue formation, while the spongeous cross-linked matrix of CCM facilitated early vascularization and demonstrated network presence over a longer time span.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(275,'Effect of platelet-derived growth factor-BB on tissue integration of cross-linked and non-cross-linked collagen matrices in a rat ectopic model.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(276,'1309-1317');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(277,'2017-10-00 2017 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(278,replace('Number: 10\n22 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 27659296','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(279,'10.1111/clr.12977');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(280,'PURPOSE: To test whether or not one of two membranes is superior for peri-implant-guided bone regeneration in terms of clinical and histologic outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 27 patients, 27 two-piece dental implants were placed in single-tooth gaps in the esthetic area. Buccal dehiscence and/or fenestration-type defects were regenerated using demineralized bovine bone mineral and randomly covered with either a resorbable membrane (RES) or a titanium-reinforced non-resorbable membrane (N-RES). Clinical measurements included vertical defect resolution and the horizontal thickness of regenerated bone at implant placement and at 6 months. Statistics were performed by means of nonparametric testing. RESULTS: The remaining mean vertical defect measured 4 mm (±2.07) (RES) and 2.36 mm (±2.09) (N-RES) (P = 0.044) at baseline and 0.77 mm (±0.85) (RES) and 0.21 mm (±0.80) (N-RES) (P = 0.021) at re-entry. This translated into a defect resolution of 85% (RES) and 90.7% (N-RES) (P = 0.10). The horizontal thickness after augmentation measured 3.46 mm (±0.52) (RES) and 2.82 mm (±0.50) (N-RES) (P = 0.004). The mean loss in horizontal thickness from baseline to re-entry measured 2.23 mm (SD ±1.21) (RES) and 0.14 mm (±0.79) (N-RES) (P = 0.017). The horizontal changes in thickness at the implant shoulder level were statistically significant between the groups (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities were clinically effective in regenerating bone as demonstrated by a similar horizontal thickness and vertical defect fill at 6 months. The N-RES group exhibited significantly less horizontal bone thickness reduction from baseline to follow-up.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(281,'Randomized clinical study assessing two membranes for guided bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects: clinical and histological outcomes at 6 months.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(282,'631-639');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(283,'2017-06-00 2017 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(284,replace('Number: 6\n24 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 27060694','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(285,'10.1111/clr.12845');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(286,'OBJECTIVES: To test whether GBR with an L-shaped soft-block bone substitute and particulate bone substitute differs from GBR with particulate bone substitute as regards the volume stability of the augmented region during flap closure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty peri-implant box-shaped bone defects were created in 10 pig mandibles. Every bone defect was augmented with each of the following two GBR procedures in turn: control group - particulate xenograft applied buccally + collagen membrane + pins; test group - particulate xenograft applied buccally + L-shaped soft-block xenograft applied buccally and occlusally + collagen membrane + pins. Cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained before and after wound closure. The horizontal thickness (HT) of the augmented region (bone substitute + membrane) was assessed at the implant shoulder (HT(0 mm) ) and at 1 mm to 5 mm apical to the implant shoulder (HT(1 mm) -HT(5 mm) ). In the test group, the vertical thickness (VT) and 45° thickness (45-T) of the augmented region were measured from the implant shoulder. The changes in HT during flap suturing were calculated as absolute (mm) and relative values (%). Repeated-measures ANOVAs were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The reduction in HT(0 mm) was 20.5 ± 23.3% (SD) in the control group and 2.4 ± 9.2% (SD) in the test group (P = 0.014). There were no statistically significant differences in changes in HT(1-5 mm) between the groups (P > 0.05). In the test group, the reduction in VT amounted to 28.0 ± 11.9% (SD) and the reduction in 45-T amounted to 24.8 ± 10.2% (SD) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The addition of an L-shaped soft-block bone substitute to a particulate xenograft, covered by a collagen membrane and fixed with pins, significantly improved the horizontal volume stability of the augmented region during wound closure.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(287,'Influence of wound closure on the volume stability of particulate and non-particulate GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination. Part II.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(288,'87');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(289,'1444-1457');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(290,'1943-3670 0022-3492');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(291,'2016-12-00 2016 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(292,replace('Number: 12\n24 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 27468794','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(293,'10.1902/jop.2016.160226');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(294,'BACKGROUND: The purpose of the current study is to assess which vertical bone augmentation techniques are most effective for restoring atrophic posterior areas of the mandible with dental implants and compare these procedures with alternative treatments. METHODS: Electronic literature searches in PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid, and the Cochrane Library were conducted to identify all relevant articles published up to July 1, 2015. Eligibility was based on inclusion criteria, and quality assessments were conducted. The primary outcome variables were implant and prosthetic failure. After data extraction, meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Out of 527 potentially eligible papers, 14 randomized clinical trials were included. Out of these 14 studies, four trials assessed short implants (5 to 8 mm) as an alternative to vertical bone augmentation in sites with a residual ridge height of 5 to 8 mm. No statistically significant differences were found in implant (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 3.31; P = 0.98; I(2): 0%) or prosthetic failure (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.21 to 1.96; P = 0.43; I(2): 0%) after 12 months of loading. However, complications at treated sites increased with the augmentation procedures (OR: 8.33; 95% CI: 3.85 to 20.0; P <0.001; I(2): 0%). There was no evidence of any vertical augmentation procedure being of greater benefit than any other for the primary outcomes (implant and prosthetic failure). CONCLUSIONS: Short implants in the posterior area of the mandible seem to be preferable to vertical augmentation procedures, which present similar implant and prosthetic failure rates but greater morbidity. All the vertical augmentation technique comparisons showed similar intergroup results.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(295,'Interventions for Dental Implant Placement in Atrophic Edentulous Mandibles: Vertical Bone Augmentation and Alternative Treatments. A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(296,'43');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(297,'874-885');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(298,'2016-10-00 2016 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(299,replace('Number: 10\n67 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 27310522','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(300,'10.1111/jcpe.12588');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(301,'AIM: To test whether or not the use of a collagen matrix (VCMX) results in short-term soft tissue volume increase at implant sites non-inferior to an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG), and to evaluate safety and tissue integration of VCMX and SCTG. METHODS: In 20 patients with a volume deficiency at single-tooth implant sites, soft tissue volume augmentation was performed randomly allocating VCMX or SCTG. Soft tissue thickness, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and safety were assessed up to 90 days (FU-90). At FU-90 (abutment connection), tissue samples were obtained for histological analysis. Descriptive analysis was computed for both groups. Non-parametric tests were applied to test non-inferiority for the gain in soft tissue thickness at the occlusal site. RESULTS: Median soft tissue thickness increased between BL and FU-90 by 1.8 mm (Q1:0.5; Q3:2.0) (VCMX) (p = 0.018) and 0.5 mm (-1.0; 2.0) (SCTG) (p = 0.395) (occlusal) and by 1.0 mm (0.5; 2.0) (VCMX) (p = 0.074) and 1.5 mm (-2.0; 2.0) (SCTG) (p = 0.563) (buccal). Non-inferiority with a non-inferiority margin of 1 mm could be demonstrated (p = 0.020); the difference between the two group medians (1.3 mm) for occlusal sites indicated no relevant, but not significant superiority of VCMX versus SCTG (primary endpoint). Pain medication consumption and pain perceived were non-significantly higher in group SCTG up to day 3. Median physical pain (OHIP-14) at day 7 was 100% higher for SCTG than for VCMX. The histological analysis revealed well-integrated grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue augmentation at implant sites resulted in a similar or higher soft tissue volume increase after 90 days for VCMX versus SCTG. PROMs did not reveal relevant differences between the two groups.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(302,'Randomized controlled clinical study evaluating effectiveness and safety of a volume-stable collagen matrix compared to autogenous connective tissue grafts for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(303,'348-354');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(304,'2017-03-00 2017 Mar');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(305,replace('Number: 3\n42 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 26923088','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(306,'10.1111/clr.12806');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(307,'PURPOSE: The aim of the present randomized controlled clinical study was to test whether small bony dehiscence defects (≤5 mm) left to heal spontaneously result in the same clinical and radiological outcome as defects treated with guided bone regeneration (GBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients who received at least one implant with a small bony dehiscence defect were enrolled in the study. If the defect height was ≤5 mm, the site was randomly assigned to either the spontaneous healing (SH) group or the GBR group. In the SH group, the defect was left without any treatment. In the GBR group, the defects around the implants were grafted with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and covered with a native collagen membrane. Clinical and radiographic measurements were performed 6 months after implant placement with a reentry surgery and at the time of crown insertion and the subsequent follow-up appointments at 3, 6, 12 and 18 months after loading. For statistical analyses, the mixed linear model was applied for the clinical and radiographic measurements observed around the implants. Simple comparisons of the location of the measurements in the two independent groups are performed with the Mann-Whitney U-test. In addition, the mixed model assumptions were checked. RESULTS: The implant and crown survival rate 18 months after loading was 100%, revealing no serious biologic or prosthetic complication. The mean changes of the buccal vertical bone height between implant placement and reentry surgery after 6 months revealed a small bone loss of -0.17 ± 1.79 mm (minimum -4 mm and maximum 2.5 mm) for the SH group and a bone gain of 1.79 ± 2.24 mm (minimum of -2.5 mm and maximum of 5 mm) for the GBR group, respectively (P = 0.017). Radiographic measurements demonstrated a slight bone loss of -0.39 ± 0.49 mm for the SH group and a stable bone level of 0.02 ± 0.48 mm for GBR group after 18 months. All peri-implant soft tissue parameters revealed healthy tissues with no difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Small bony dehiscence defects left for spontaneous healing demonstrated high implant survival rates with healthy and stable soft tissues. However, they revealed more vertical bone loss at the buccal aspect 6 months after implant insertion and also more marginal bone loss between crown insertion and 18 months after loading compared to sites treated with GBR.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(308,'A randomized controlled clinical trial comparing small buccal dehiscence defects around dental implants treated with guided bone regeneration or left for spontaneous healing.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(309,'116-125');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(310,'2009-02-00 2009 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(311,replace('Number: 2\n52 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 19077154','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(312,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01622.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(313,'AIM: The aim of the present study was to investigate the pattern of biodegradation of different polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel/RGD-peptide modifications in rats. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two different hydrogels were employed: (i) a combination of four-arm PEG-thiol, M(n)=2.3 kDa, and eight-arm PEG-acrylate, M(n)=2.3 kDa (PEG1); and (ii) a combination of four-arm PEG-thiol, M(n)=2.3 kDa, and four-arm PEG-acrylate, M(n)=15 kDa (PEG2). Both PEG1 and PEG2 were either used alone or combined with a nine amino acid cys-RGD peptide (RGD). A non-cross-linked porcine type I and III collagen membrane [BioGide (BG)] served as control. Specimens were randomly allocated in unconnected subcutaneous pouches separated surgically on the back of 60 wistar rats, which were divided into six groups (1, 2, 4, 8, 16, and 24 weeks). Specimens were prepared for histological (tissue integration, foreign body reactions, biodegradation) and immunohistochemical (angiogenesis) analysis. RESULTS: All materials investigated revealed unimpeded and comparable tissue integration without any signs of foreign body reactions. While BG exhibited transmembraneous blood vessel formation at 1 week, all PEG specimens were just surrounded by a well-vascularized connective tissue. The hydrolytic disruption of PEG1 and PEG1/RGD specimens was associated with an ingrowth of blood vessels at 4 weeks. Biodegradation times were highest for PEG1 (24 weeks)>PEG1/RGD (16 weeks)>BG (4 weeks)>PEG2=PEG2/RGD (2 weeks). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the present study, it was concluded that (i) all materials investigated revealed a high biocompatibility and tissue integration, and (ii) hydrogel biodegradation was dependent on PEG composition.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(314,'Biodegradation of different synthetic hydrogels made of polyethylene glycol hydrogel/RGD-peptide modifications: an immunohistochemical study in rats.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(315,'7-16');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(316,'2009-01-00 2009 Jan');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(317,replace('Number: 1\n58 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 19126102','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(318,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01604.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(319,'OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test whether a synthetic, biodegradable membrane made of polyethylene glycol (PEG) can prevent soft-tissue ingrowth into alveolar defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In each of 16 minipigs, three mandibular premolars were bilaterally extracted. Three months later, acute standardized defects (diameter 8 mm, depth 8 mm) were prepared. Four treatment modalities were randomly allocated to the defects: (1) PEG membrane plus collagen sponge, (2) polylactide (PLA) membrane plus collagen sponge, (3) collagen sponge alone, and (4) empty defect. Animals were sacrificed at 10 days (n=5), 21 days (n=5), or 2 months (n=6) after treatment. Qualitative and quantitative histological evaluations of soft-tissue ingrowth and bone regeneration were performed on nondecalcified ground sections. For statistical analysis, the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test, the Kruskal-Wallis, and the paired t-test were applied. P-values were adjusted using the Dunnett-Hsu adjustment. RESULTS: At 10 days, the PEG membrane group showed the least soft-tissue ingrowth (mean value -0.75 mm; range -1.35 to -0.10), followed by the PLA membrane group -0.18 mm (-0.80 to 0.44), the collagen group 0.04 mm (-0.65 to 0.73), and the empty defects 0.60 mm (-0.08 to 1.29). Statistically significant differences were observed between the PEG membrane group and the empty defects (P<0.05). At 21 days, the highest percentage of newly formed bone was found in the PEG membrane group (mean 28.4%; range 21.6-35.2) compared with 23.7% (16.9-30.5; PLA membrane), 15.2% (8.2-22.2; collagen group), and 21.6% (14.5-28.8; empty defects). Statistically significant differences were only found between the PEG membrane group and the collagen group (P<0.05). At 2 months, the tested parameters revealed no statistically significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSION: The experimental PEG membrane applied in the present study successfully prevented collapse of the covering soft tissues to a degree similar to the PLA membrane. The combination of a collagen sponge and the PEG membrane showed the least soft-tissue ingrowth at 10 days and promoted more bone formation at 21 days.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(320,'Evaluation of a new biodegradable membrane to prevent gingival ingrowth into mandibular bone defects in minipigs.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(321,'© 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(322,'42');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(323,'11');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(324,'1060-1070');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(325,'2015-11-00 2015 Nov');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(326,replace('Number: 11\n20 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 26440201','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(327,'10.1111/jcpe.12468');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(328,'AIM: To test whether titanium-zirconium (Ti-Zr) 3.3 mm diameter implants perform differently from titanium (Ti) 4.1 mm diameter implants with respect to marginal bone level (MBL) and clinical parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients in need of a single-implant crown in the anterior or premolar regions were enrolled in two centres. Following random allocation, either a Ti-Zr or a Ti implant was inserted. Porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns were inserted 6 months after implantation. Implant survival, change in MBL, clinical parameters, change in mid-facial mucosa and papilla levels, and the occurrence of biological and technical complications were assessed at the 3-year follow-up. RESULTS: At 3 years, 32 of the 40 included patients were examined (15 Ti and 17 Ti-Zr implants). There were no implant failures. From the implant placement to 3 years, the median change in mean MBL amounted to 0.21 mm (mean: -0.31) in the Ti group and 0.10 mm (mean: -0.40) in the Ti-Zr group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the change in MBL, the change in mucosa levels, and the occurrence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Ti-Zr implants with 3.3 mm diameter used for the support of single crowns in the anterior and the premolar regions did not differ from Ti implants with 4.1 mm diameter regarding the clinical performance over a 3-year period.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(329,'Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(330,'727-737');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(331,'2007-12-00 2007 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(332,replace('Number: 6\n106 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 17888019','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(333,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01411.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(334,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to test whether or not immediate implantation leads to more biological complications, when performed at extraction sockets of teeth exhibiting periapical pathology compared with teeth not exhibiting periapical pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 17 consecutively admitted patients, immediate implant placement was planned in order to replace single teeth exhibiting periapical pathology (test group). These teeth demonstrated pain, periapical radiolucency, fistula, suppuration or a combination of these findings. Another 17 consecutively admitted patients in need of single tooth replacement in the absence of periapical pathology served as the control group. Implant placement and accompanying bone regeneration were performed according to standard clinical procedures. Implants were loaded after a healing period of 3 months. Clinical and radiographical parameters were assessed at the time of implant placement (baseline) and at 12 months thereafter. RESULTS: Out of the 34 patients, four test and one control patient had to be withdrawn from the study due to the inability to obtain primary implant stability. The residual 29 implants revealed a survival rate of 100% 1 year after placement. Clinical and radiographical differences between 12 months and baseline comparing test and control groups showed no statistical significances for any of the parameters assessed. Within test and control groups there was a statistically significant loss of vertical bone height at the adjacent teeth (mesial test=0.4+/-0.6 mm, control=0.4+/-0.5 mm; distal test=0.3+/-0.2 mm, control=0.7+/-0.8 mm) as well as at the implant site (mesial test=1.9+/-1.4 mm, control=1.8+/-1.1 mm; distal test=1.7+/-1.4 mm, control=1.6+/-1.1 mm) and of buccal keratinized mucosa (test=-2.2+/-1.2 mm; control=-1.3+/-1.6 mm) between baseline and 12 months. During the first 13 weeks of healing, two sites of the test and one site of the control group showed signs of infection, which required intervention. Neither the incident of early exit nor of signs of infection was statistically significantly different between the test and the control group (Mann-Whitney U test). CONCLUSION: It is concluded that for those implants where primary stability was achieved, the immediate implant placement performed at extraction sockets exhibiting periapical pathology did not lead to an increased rate of complications and rendered an equally favorable type of tissue integration of the implants in both groups. Implant placement into such sites can, therefore, be successfully performed.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(335,'Replacement of teeth exhibiting periapical pathology by immediate implants: a prospective, controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(336,'676-682');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(337,'2005-12-00 2005 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(338,replace('Number: 6\n60 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 16307574','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(339,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01183.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(340,'The aim of the present study was (1) to test whether or not platelet-rich plasma (PRP) or commercially available fibrin can increase bone regeneration compared with non-treated defects and (2) to test whether or not PRP or fibrin increases bone regeneration when used as a delivery system for recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2). In 16 New Zealand White rabbits, four evenly distributed 6 mm diameter defects were drilled into the calvarial bone. The following five treatment modalities were randomly allocated to all 64 defects: (0) untreated control, (1) fibrin alone, (2) PRP alone, (3) fibrin with 15 microg rhBMP-2 and (4) PRP with 15 microg rhBMP-2. For the fibrin gels and the PRP containing rhBMP-2, the 15 microg rhBMP-2 was incorporated by precipitation within the matrices before their gelation. After 4 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and the calvarial bones were removed for histological preparation. The area fraction of newly formed bone was determined in vertical sections from the middle of the defect by applying histomorphometrical analysis. A mean area fraction of newly formed bone was found within the former defect of 23.4% (+/-13.5%) in the control sites, of 28.4% (+/-17.4%) in the fibrin sites and of 34.5% (+/-17.4%) in the PRP sites. The statistical analysis revealed no significant difference in bone formation between the three groups (ANOVA). Addition of 15 microg rhBMP-2 in the fibrin gel (59.9+/-20.3%) and the PRP gels (63.1+/-25.3%) increased bone formation significantly. No significant difference was observed between sites, where PRP or fibrin has been used as a delivery system for rhBMP-2 (ANOVA). In conclusion, the application of fibrin gels or PRP gels to bone defects is not superior to leaving the defect untreated. Regarding the amount of bone formation, the application of 15 microg rhBMP-2 in bone defects enhances the healing significantly at 4 weeks. In this animal model, commercially available fibrin and autologous PRP gels are equally effective as delivery systems for rhBMP-2.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(341,'Platelet-rich plasma and fibrin as delivery systems for recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(342,'© 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(343,'1063-1070');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(344,'2011-11-00 2011 Nov');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(345,replace('Number: 11\n56 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 22092478','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(346,'10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01786.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(347,'OBJECTIVES: The aim was to test, whether or not soft tissue volume augmentation with a specifically designed collagen matrix (CM), leads to ridge width gain in chronic ridge defects similar to those obtained by an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In six dogs, soft tissue volume augmentation was performed by randomly allocating three treatment modalities to chronic ridge defects [CM, SCTG and sham-operated control (Control)]. Dogs were sacrificed at 28 (n = 3) and 84 days (n = 3). Descriptive histology and histomorphometric measurements were performed on non-decalcified sections. RESULTS: SCTG and CM demonstrated favourable tissue integration, and subsequent re-modelling over 84 days. The overall mean amount of newly formed soft tissue (NMT) plus bone (NB) amounted to 3.8 ± 1.2 mm (Control), 6.4 ± 0.9 mm (CM) and 7.2 ± 1.2 mm (SCTG) at 28 days. At 84 days, the mean NMT plus NB reached 2.4 ± 0.9 mm (Control), 5.6 ± 1.5 mm (CM) and 6.0 ± 2.1 mm (SCTG). Statistically significant differences were observed between CM/SCTG and Control at both time-points (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this animal model, the CM performed similar to the SCTG, based on histomorphometric outcomes combining NB and NMT.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(348,'Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen-based matrices in the dog mandible -- a histological analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(349,'17');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(350,'426-433');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(351,'2006-08-00 2006 Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(352,replace('Number: 4\n87 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 16907774','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(353,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01228.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(354,'The aim of the present study was to test whether or not the application of an in situ formed synthetic hydrogel made of polyethylene glycol (PEG) used as a biodegradable membrane for guided bone regeneration will result in the same amount of bone regeneration as with the use of an expanded polytetrafluoro-ethylene (ePTFE) membrane. In eight New Zealand White rabbits, four evenly distributed 6 mm diameter defects were drilled into the calvarial bone. Three treatment modalities were evenly distributed among the 32 defects: hydroxyapatite (HA)/tricalciumphosphate (TCP) granules covered at the outer and inner surface with a PEG membrane (test), HA/TCP granules covered at the outer and inner surface with an ePTFE membrane (positive control) and HA/TCP granules alone without membranes (negative control). After 4 weeks, the animals were sacrificed and the calvarial bones were removed. The area fraction of newly formed bone was determined by histomorphometrical analysis of the vertical sections from the middle of the defect and by micro-computed tomography of the entire defect. Multiple regression analysis (SAS GLM) was used to model the amount of new bone formation. The quantitative histomorphometric analysis clearly revealed higher values of newly formed bone for the two membrane groups compared with the negative control group. The average area fractions of newly formed bone measured within the former defect amounted to 20.3+/-9.5% for the PEG membrane, 18.9+/-9.9% for the ePTFE membrane, and 7.3+/-5.3% for the sites with no membrane. The micro-computed tomography also showed higher values of new bone formation for the PEG and for the ePTFE groups compared with the negative control group. The GLM revealed a highly significant effect of the treatment on the amount of bone formation (P=0.0048). The values for the negative control group were significantly lower than the ones found in the PEG membrane group (P=0.0017), whereas the ePTFE membrane group showed no significant difference from the PEG membrane group. It is concluded that the PEG membrane can be used successfully as a biodegradable barrier membrane in the treatment of non-critical-size defects in the rabbit skull, and leads to similar amounts of bone regeneration as an ePTFE membrane.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(355,'Evaluation of an in situ formed synthetic hydrogel as a biodegradable membrane for guided bone regeneration.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(356,'23');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(357,'160-168');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(358,'2012-02-00 2012 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(359,replace('Number: 2\n16 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 21692857','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(360,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02217.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(361,'OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not an experimental polyethylene glycol (PEG) membrane maintains the bone graft volume and contributes to the preservation of the ridge contour in comparison with a commercially available synthetic membrane. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 18 dogs, all mandibular premolars and the first molars were extracted. Ten weeks later, acute standardized defects were prepared. The defects of four dogs were randomly assigned to three modalities: (1) PEG plus deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) (PEG), (2) a resorbable glycolide trimethylene carbonate membrane plus DBBM (PGA-TMC), and (3) DBBM alone (DBBM). These dogs were then sacrificed for the baseline measurements. The remaining defects of 14 dogs were randomly assigned to (1) PEG plus DBBM, (2) PGA-TMC plus DBBM, (3) DBBM, and (4) empty defect. The dogs were sacrificed at baseline (n=4), 4 weeks (n=7), or at 16 weeks (n=7). Mixed model regressions and the non-parametric Brunner-Langer method were applied for statistical analysis. RESULTS: At baseline, equal tissue augmentation was observed in all groups. At 4 and 16 weeks, the greatest augmented area fractions were calculated for PEG (103%; 107%, respectively), followed by PGA-TMC (98%; 91%), DBBM (85%; 78%), and empty (46%; 54%), being statistically significant different (P<0.001) between PEG and empty at 4 and 16 weeks, and PEG and DBBM at 16 weeks. The overall decrease (P≤0.01) in the amount of bone graft between baseline and 16 weeks was -14% (PEG), -22% (PGA-TMC), and -23% (DBBM). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that the combination of the PEG membrane with DBBM maintains the bone graft volume over time better than controls. The PEG membrane with DBBM was also the most effective method to preserve the ridge contour.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(362,'Evaluation of a biodegradable synthetic hydrogel used as a guided bone regeneration membrane: an experimental study in dogs.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(363,'545-551');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(364,'2007-10-00 2007 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(365,replace('Number: 5\n70 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 17590160','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(366,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01382.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(367,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility and the accuracy of volumetric measurements of specimens imitating localized alveolar ridge defects using an optical three-dimensional (3D) system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight pairs of specimens (five with a cuboid and three with a geometrically complex form) were used for the measurements. Each of them imitated a pre-operative ridge defect and a corresponding surgically corrected post-operative situation. The true volume differences between two corresponding specimens were either assessed by a mechanical 3D coordinate measuring machine or by computer calculation (controls). For the test measurements, an optical 3D system with a newly developed software for volume measurements was utilized. The volumes of the specimen pairs were captured and the data digitized. The volume differences between the simulated pre- and post-operative situations were calculated by subtracting the two values obtained. The accuracy of the optical 3D system was assessed comparing the test and the control values. The difference between these values described the systematic error of the test method. The reproducibility was evaluated by calculating the coefficients of variation of repeated test volume measurements. Descriptive statistics were applied. RESULTS: The accuracy of the optical 3D system was very high with differences between test and control measurements never exceeding 1.5%. The systematic error of the test measurements was consistently below 2.5 mm3. The reproducibility of the measurements showed very low coefficients of variation ranging from 0.05% to 0.5%, indicating excellent reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: The tested optical 3D system showed excellent accuracy and high reproducibility for measuring volume differences between specimens imitating localized alveolar ridge defects before and after augmentation procedures.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(368,'A new optical method to evaluate three-dimensional volume changes of alveolar contours: a methodological in vitro study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(369,'27');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(370,'258-265');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(371,'2016-02-00 2016 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(372,replace('Number: 2\n47 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 25856209','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(373,'10.1111/clr.12590');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(374,'OBJECTIVE: To test whether the use of (i) particulated bone substitute + collagen membrane used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) of peri-implant bone defects renders different results from (ii) particulated bone substitute + collagen membrane + fixation pins and from (iii) block bone substitute + collagen membrane with respect to the volume stability of the augmented region during suturing of mucosal flaps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty peri-implant box-shaped bone defects were created in 10 pig mandibles. Every bone defect was augmented once with each of the following GBR procedures: Granulate (particulated xenograft + collagen membrane), Granulate + Pins (particulated xenograft + collagen membrane + fixation pins), and Block (block xenograft + collagen membrane). Cone-beam computed tomography scans were obtained prior and after blinded wound closure. The horizontal thickness (HT) of the augmented region (bone substitute + membrane) was assessed at the implant shoulder (HT0 mm ) and at 1-5 mm apical to the implant shoulder (HT1 mm -HT5 mm ). The changes of HT during flap suturing were calculated as absolute (mm) and relative values (%). Repeated-measures ANOVA was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Wound closure induced a statistically significant change of HT0 mm and of HT1 mm in all the treatment groups (P ≤ 0.05). The change in HT0 mm measured -42.8 ± 17.9% (SD) for Granulate, -22.9 ± 21.2% (SD) for Granulate + Pins, and -20.2 ± 18.9% (SD) for Block. The reduction in HT0 mm, HT1 mm , HT2 mm, and HT3 mm for the Granulate procedure was significantly higher as compared to the Granulate + Pins and the Block procedures (P ≤ 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the change of HT between the Granulate + Pins and the Block procedures (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Wound closure induced displacement of the bone substitute resulting in a partial collapse of the collagen membrane in the coronal portion of the augmented site. The stability of the bone substitute and collagen membrane was enhanced by the application of fixation pins and by the use of block bone substitute instead of particulated bone substitute.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(375,'Influence of blinded wound closure on the volume stability of different GBR materials: an in vitro cone-beam computed tomographic examination.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(376,'751-761');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(377,'2016-07-00 2016 Jul');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(378,replace('Number: 7\n31 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 26212100','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(379,'10.1111/clr.12670');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(380,'AIM: The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate the safety and efficiency of a one-piece zirconia oral implant after 1 year of function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two centers included 60 subjects in need of implant-supported single-tooth restorations or three-unit bridges. A total of 71 zirconia one-piece implants were placed and immediately restored with a temporary reconstruction for at least 2 months. The final veneered zirconia restorations were then cemented and followed for 6 months and 1 year after insertion of the restorations. At each visit, a clinical evaluation was performed to analyze biological parameters of the implants and the neighboring teeth. A standardized periapical radiograph was taken at implant insertion, at the placement of the restorations and at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty patients with 71 implants (48 in the mandible, 23 in the maxilla) were included in this study and provided with 11 bridges and 49 crowns. Two patients with three implants (one bridge and one single crown) could not be evaluated. One patient lost his implant 5 weeks after implant insertion. Based on 58 patients, the mean survival rate was 98.3% after one year when the implants of the two patients that did not show up were not counted as lost. The mean marginal bone loss from implant insertion to the 1-year follow-up after the final prosthetic restoration was 0.78 mm with a standard deviation of 0.79 mm. The probing depth around the implants increased from 2.7 mm at insertion of the prosthetic reconstruction to 3.5 mm one year after insertion. The probing depth around the adjacent teeth remained stable at 2.5 mm. At the 1-year recall, the difference was significant. The clinical attachment levels at implants and teeth were not different at the 1-year follow-up with 3.1 mm at tooth and implant sites. CONCLUSIONS: The presently tested one-piece ceramic implant was successful in replacing single tooth and three-unit gaps after one year of function. Further long-term data are necessary to verify these initial findings.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(381,'Evaluation of a one-piece ceramic implant used for single-tooth replacement and three-unit fixed partial dentures: a prospective cohort clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(382,'© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(383,'1052-1061');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(384,'2013-11-00 2013 Nov');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(385,replace('Number: 11\n44 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 24015975','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(386,'10.1111/jcpe.12156');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(387,'AIM: To test whether titanium-zirconium (TiZr) 3.3 mm diameter implants perform differently from titanium (Ti) 4.1 mm diameter implants with respect to marginal bone level (MBL) and clinical parameters. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty subjects in need of a single implant-supported crown in the anterior or premolar regions were recruited in two centres. After random allocation, either a Ti or a TiZr implant was placed. Definitive crowns were inserted 6 months after implant placement. Implant survival, change in MBL, clinical parameters and occurrence of adverse events were assessed at the 1-year examination. RESULTS: At 1 year, 38 of the 40 included patients were examined (18 Ti and 20 TiZr implants). All the implants were in place and stable. From the implant placement to the 1-year examination, the change of MBL amounted to -0.40 mm in the Ti group and -0.41 mm in the TiZr group. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the change in MBL, the clinical parameters and the occurrence of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TiZr implants with narrow diameter for the support of single crowns in the anterior and premolar regions leads to successful tissue integration and clinical performance over a 1-year period.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(388,'Titanium-zirconium narrow-diameter versus titanium regular-diameter implants for anterior and premolar single crowns: 1-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(389,'716-723');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(390,'2016-06-00 2016 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(391,replace('Number: 6\n36 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 26086947','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(392,'10.1111/clr.12654');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(393,'AIM: The aim of this prospective cohort study was to evaluate clinical, radiographic, technical, esthetic, and patient-centered outcomes of implants using two different restoration materials after 5-9 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 28 patients (test group: 13 patients with all-ceramic crowns on aluminum oxide-based abutments; control group: 15 patients with metal abutments on porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns). Evaluation of patient satisfaction, clinical (periodontal probing depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, mucosal recession, and width of keratinized mucosa), esthetical (papilla index, clinical crown length), technical (loss of retention, marginal adaptation, chipping of ceramic, anatomical shape, occlusal wear, color match), and radiological parameters were assessed. The statistical analyses included comparison of all-ceramic vs. metal abutments and between the groups using Mann-Whitney U-tests. For esthetic parameters, changes over time were assessed using Friedman test and post hoc Wilcoxon test of all complete cases. RESULTS: The survival rate of the restoration was 100% in both groups. Patient''s satisfaction revealed 9.7 on the visual analog scale. A low satisfaction correlated with low ratings in color or anatomical shape. The mucosal recession in the test group was less than that in the control group. An increase in distal papilla height in the year 0 to 1, and a decrease from year 1 to 8, was detected. Sites, which received a soft tissue graft, revealed stable papillae over the observation period. Clinical crown length showed higher values in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that all-ceramic restorations reveal a high survival rate of 100% and show no difference to metal after a mean observation period of 7.2 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(394,'Long-term clinical, technical, and esthetic outcomes of all-ceramic vs. titanium abutments on implant supporting single-tooth reconstructions after at least 5 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(395,'151-161');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(396,replace('Number: 2\n55 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 19191792','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(397,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01633.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(398,'PURPOSE: The aim was (1) to evaluate the soft-tissue reaction of a synthetic polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel used as a barrier membrane for guided bone regeneration (GBR) compared with a collagen membrane and (2) to test whether or not the application of this in situ formed membrane will result in a similar amount of bone regeneration as the use of a collagen membrane. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Tooth extraction and preparation of osseous defects were performed in the mandibles of 11 beagle dogs. After 3 months, 44 cylindrical implants were placed within healed dehiscence-type bone defects resulting in approximately 6 mm exposed implant surface. The following four treatment modalities were randomly allocated: PEG+autogenous bone chips, PEG+hydroxyapatite (HA)/tricalcium phosphate (TCP) granules, bioresorbable collagen membrane+autogenous bone chips and autogenous bone chips without a membrane. After 2 and 6 months, six and five dogs were sacrificed, respectively. A semi-quantitative evaluation of the local tolerance and a histomorphometric analysis were performed. For statistical analysis, repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) and subsequent pairwise Student''s t-test were applied (P<0.05). RESULTS: No local adverse effects in association with the PEG compared with the collagen membrane was observed clinically and histologically at any time-point. Healing was uneventful and all implants were histologically integrated. Four out of 22 PEG membrane sites revealed a soft-tissue dehiscence after 1-2 weeks that subsequently healed uneventful. Histomorphometric measurement of the vertical bone gain showed after 2 months values between 31% and 45% and after 6 months between 31% and 38%. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) within the former defect area was similarly high in all groups ranging from 71% to 82% after 2 months and 49% to 91% after 6 months. However, with regard to all evaluated parameters, the PEG and the collagen membranes did not show any statistically significant difference compared with sites treated with autogenous bone without a membrane. CONCLUSION: The in situ forming synthetic membrane made of PEG was safely used in the present study, revealing no biologically significant abnormal soft-tissue reaction and demonstrated similar amounts of newly formed bone for defects treated with the PEG membrane compared with defects treated with a standard collagen membrane.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(399,'A feasibility study evaluating an in situ formed synthetic biodegradable membrane for guided bone regeneration in dogs.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(400,'19-25');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(401,'2008-01-00 2008 Jan');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(402,replace('Number: 1\n180 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 17956571','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(403,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01407.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(404,'OBJECTIVE: Lateral ridge augmentations are traditionally performed using autogenous bone grafts to support membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR). The bone-harvesting procedure, however, is accompanied by considerable patient morbidity. AIM: The aim of the present study was to test whether or not resorbable membranes and bone substitutes will lead to successful horizontal ridge augmentation allowing implant installation under standard conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve patients in need of implant therapy participated in this study. They revealed bone deficits in the areas intended for implant placement. Soft tissue flaps were carefully raised and blocks or particles of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) (Bio-Oss) were placed in the defect area. A collagenous membrane (Bio-Gide) was applied to cover the DBBM and was fixed to the surrounding bone using poly-lactic acid pins. The flaps were sutured to allow for healing by primary intention. RESULTS: All sites in the 12 patients healed uneventfully. No flap dehiscences and no exposures of membranes were observed. Nine to 10 months following augmentation surgery, flaps were raised in order to visualize the outcomes of the augmentation. An integration of the DBBM particles into the newly formed bone was consistently observed. Merely on the surface of the new bone, some pieces of the grafting material were only partly integrated into bone. However, these were not encapsulated by connective tissue but rather anchored into the newly regenerated bone. In all of the cases, but one, the bone volume following regeneration was adequate to place implants in a prosthetically ideal position and according to the standard protocol with complete bone coverage of the surface intended for osseointegration. Before the regenerative procedure, the average crestal bone width was 3.2 mm and to 6.9 mm at the time of implant placement. This difference was statistically significant (P<0.05, Wilcoxon''s matched pairs signed-rank test). CONCLUSION: After a healing period of 9-10 months, the combination of DBBM and a collagen membrane is an effective treatment option for horizontal bone augmentation before implant placement.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(405,'Ridge augmentation by applying bioresorbable membranes and deproteinized bovine bone mineral: a report of twelve consecutive cases.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(406,'1169-1177');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(407,'2016-09-00 2016 Sep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(408,replace('Number: 9\n14 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 26459570','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(409,'10.1111/clr.12721');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(410,'OBJECTIVES: To analyze clinical, esthetic, radiographic, and prosthetic outcomes of implants and implant-supported reconstructions using two types of dental implants with non-matching implant abutment junctions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 64 patients in need of dental implant therapy with fixed reconstructions were consecutively enrolled. They were randomly assigned to either one of two implant systems (S1: Astra Tech Osseospeed and S2: Straumann Bone Level). Baseline (day of loading) and 1-year measurements included demographics, radiographic, clinical, biologic, prosthetic, and esthetic outcomes. All data were analyzed at the patient level and at the implant level. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U-test was used to detect differences in continuous variables between two independent groups. RESULTS: Ninety-seven implants (S1 = 54, S2 = 43) were placed and loaded with fixed reconstructions in 64 patients. No implant was lost during the 1-year observation period resulting in a 100% survival rate for both implant systems. At the patient level, the mean marginal bone level at implant insertion was -1.30 mm (SD ± 1.00 mm) for S1 and -1.26 mm (±1.22 mm) for S2 (negative values indicating bone levels coronal to the implant shoulder). At the time of loading, these distances measured 0.29 mm (±0.44 mm) for S1 and 0.22 mm (±0.43 mm) for S2. At the 1-year follow-up, these distances were 0.37 mm (±0.39 mm) for S1 and 0.39 mm (±1.02 mm) for S2. Technical complications of the reconstructions only occurred in Group S1, with a rate of 12% (patient level) (P > 0.05). Biologic complications were observed at a rate of 6% (S1) and 3.2% (S2) at the patient level (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both implant systems revealed 100% survival rates and minimal changes of the marginal bone levels during 1 year of loading. Few technical and biologic complications occurred. Therefore, both implant systems can be recommended for fixed reconstructions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(411,'Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed reconstructions - results at 1 year of loading.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(412,'© 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(413,'234-246');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(414,'Clinical implant dentistry and related research');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(415,'1708-8208 1523-0899');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(416,'2015-04-00 2015 Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(417,replace('Number: 2\n33 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 23837502','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(418,'Clin Implant Dent Relat Res');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(419,'10.1111/cid.12107');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(420,'PURPOSE: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the 3-year outcomes regarding crestal bone level, clinical parameters, and patient satisfaction, following submerged and transmucosal implant placement for two-piece implants in the anterior maxilla and mandible. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients requiring dental implants for single-tooth replacement in the anterior maxilla or mandible were enrolled in a randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial. The implants were randomized at placement to either submerged or transmucosal healing, with final restorations placed after 6 months. Radiographic and clinical parameters were recorded after 1, 2, and 3 years; a questionnaire was also used to assess patient satisfaction. A two-sided, unpaired T-test (significance level p ≤ .05) was used to statistically evaluate the differences between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were included in the 3-year analysis. The mean change in crestal bone level from implant placement to 3 years was 0.68 ± 0.98 mm (p < .001) and 0.58 ± 0.77 mm (p < .001) in the submerged and transmucosal groups, respectively; the differences between the groups were not significant. Clinical parameters remained stable throughout the study, with no significant differences between the groups, and patient satisfaction was good or excellent for over 90% of subjects in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate excellent clinical and radiographic conditions after 3 years for implants supporting single-tooth restorations, regardless of whether a submerged or transmucosal surgical technique was used.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(421,'Clinical and radiologic outcomes after submerged and transmucosal implant placement with two-piece implants in the anterior maxilla and mandible: 3-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(422,'162-168');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(423,replace('Number: 2\n114 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 19191793','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(424,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01634.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(425,'OBJECTIVES: The use of barrier membranes in guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures for the treatment of alveolar bone defects is common practice. The objective of this study was to test whether a synthetic bioresorbable polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel membrane could result in a similar amount of vertical bone fill as a standard collagen membrane, both combined with a membrane supporting material. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study enrolled 37 patients requiring implant treatment with an expected osseous defect in the posterior maxilla or mandible. After raising a mucoperiosteal flap, the implant sites were prepared and dental implants placed. The defect height was then measured and defects <3 mm were excluded from the study. Defects were grafted with bovine bone mineral and randomly covered with either a collagen membrane (control group, 18 patients) or a PEG hydrogel membrane (test group, 19 patients), which is applied as a liquid. After a healing period of 6 months, surgical re-entry was performed and the change in vertical bone height from baseline evaluated. RESULTS: Well-vascularized hard tissue was apparent at all sites and the regenerated bone was similar to the surrounding native bone. Mean vertical defect fill after 6 months was 5.63+/-1.84 mm at test sites and 4.25+/-1.16 mm at control sites, and the mean defect fills were 94.9% and 96.4% at test and control sites, respectively. More soft tissue complications were observed with the PEG membrane (e.g., delayed or incomplete wound healing) but all sites recovered uneventfully. CONCLUSIONS: The new PEG hydrogel membrane was as successful as a standard collagen membrane in the treatment of bony dehiscence defects around dental implants with simplified clinical handling.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(426,'A randomized, controlled clinical trial to evaluate a new membrane for guided bone regeneration around dental implants.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(427,'550-555');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(428,'The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(429,'1942-4434 0882-2786');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(430,'2013-04-00 2013 Mar-Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(431,replace('Number: 2\n9 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 23527359','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(432,'Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(433,'10.11607/jomi.2544');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(434,'PURPOSE: Scalloped implants were developed to better maintain marginal bone. Therefore, this study evaluated marginal bone levels (MBLs) and soft tissue around single implants with scalloped necks in the esthetic zone prospectively over a 3-year period. MBLs were compared to those of conventional flat-platform implants at 1 and 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients received anterior single-tooth implants and were divided into two groups; the test group included implants with a scalloped neck design and the control group included conventional rough-surface implants with external hex. MBLs were compared radiographically at 1 and 3 years after crown insertion. For the test group, soft and hard tissue assessments were made at six different time points, beginning at abutment connection. Mesial and distal interproximal papillae and probing depths were assessed clinically. Data were analyzed with the Student t test and repeated measures analysis of variance on ranks (P < .05). RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (17 men, 7 women) took part; each group included 12 implants. The test group had significantly more marginal bone resorption than the control group at each time point (P < .001). With respect to changes in MBL values over time, a significant difference was detected between groups mesially (P < .001) but not distally. Statistical analyses demonstrated obvious significant increases with time (P < .001) in bone resorption and mesial papilla index. A significant increase over time in probing depths was demonstrated distally (P = .003) but not mesially. CONCLUSIONS: The scalloped implant did not stabilize interproximal bone remodeling and caused more bone loss than conventional implants. Soft tissue levels were not maintained around the scalloped implants.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(435,'Marginal bone levels and soft tissue conditions around single-tooth implants with a scalloped neck design: results of a prospective 3-year study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(436,'© 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(437,'25');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(438,'150-158');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(439,'2014-02-00 2014 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(440,replace('Number: 2\n42 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 23432666','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(441,'10.1111/clr.12132');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(442,'OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical and histological outcomes of a resorbable modified polylactide/polyglycolide acid (PLGA) test membrane and a titanium-reinforced expanded polytetrafluorethylene (ePTFE) control membrane used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) around dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 patients with peri-implant dehiscence-type defects were randomly allocated to a GBR procedure using either a modified PLGA test or an ePTFE control membrane. Soft tissue condition, implant integration, adverse events and quality of life were recorded during the 6-month healing period. At re-entry peri-implant bone defect dimensions were measured and compared with values recorded at implant/GBR surgery. A biopsy was retrieved for qualitative and quantitative histological analyses. A comparison between the groups was conducted using non-parametric statistical tests. RESULTS: Soft tissue complications were observed in five test patients and two control patients. Except for soft tissue complications and incomplete regeneration, no procedure- or device-related adverse events were observed. The vertical bone defect component was, in mean, reduced by-5.1 mm (95% CI -6.8, -3.3) in the test group and -6.9 mm (95% CI -8.2, -5.5 mm) in the control group. The mean residual vertical defect height measured 1.2 ± 2.4 mm in the test group and 0.3 ± 1.1 mm in the control group meaning a mean defect resolution of 81% in the test group and 96% in the control group (P = 0.161). The horizontal bone thickness at implant shoulder level decreased from a mean of 3.2 mm to 1.4 mm (-56%, mean -1.7 mm, 95% CI -2.3, -1.1) in the test group and from 3.3 mm to 2.5 mm (-24%, mean -0.8 mm, 95% CI -1.3, -0.3) in the control group (P = 0.022). Qualitative and quantitative histological analyses did not show significant differences in the tissue composition between groups. CONCLUSION: Peri-implant GBR was successfully performed using either of the membranes. The control membrane was able to better maintain the horizontal thickness of regenerated bone and revealed less soft tissue complications. No statistically valid evidence about the superiority of one membrane was found in any other parameters. Soft tissue dehiscences occur with both types of membranes and can impair the amount of regenerated bone.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(443,'A randomized controlled clinical multicenter trial comparing the clinical and histological performance of a new, modified polylactide-co-glycolide acid membrane to an expanded polytetrafluorethylene membrane in guided bone regeneration procedures.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(444,'Copyright © 2011 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(445,'116-123');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(446,'Acta biomaterialia');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(447,'1878-7568 1742-7061');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(448,'2012-01-00 2012 Jan');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(449,replace('Number: 1\n25 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 21867781','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(450,'Acta Biomater');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(451,'10.1016/j.actbio.2011.08.002');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(452,'Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP), in particular BMP-2, are the growth factors primarily responsible for osteoinduction. A knowledge of interactions between bone substitute materials and growth factor variants is crucial to designing bone substitutes with an ideal release profile. Here we compare glycosylated and non-glycosylated recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) either incorporated into a hydrolyzable polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogel developed as a slow release system or adsorbed to a deproteinized bovine bone matrix (DBBM), a clinically well-established bone substitute material. rhBMP-2 loaded materials were immersed in cell culture medium and rhBMP-2 concentration profiles in the supernatant were determined by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The corresponding biological activities were assessed in vitro by alkaline phosphatase activity assay. We show a strong affinity of rhBMP-2 for DBBM and reduced biological activity after its release from PEG hydrogels. Glycosylated rhBMP-2 was significantly less affected by the hydrogel and interacted significantly more strongly with DBBM than non-glycosylated rhBMP-2. We therefore question the combination of PEG hydrogels with DBBM as a rhBMP-2 delivery system over DBBM alone, since rhBMP-2 released from the hydrogel will be trapped by DBBM. Moreover, our results suggest that glycosylated rhBMP-2 is favorable in combination with PEG hydrogels, since its activity is better preserved, whereas in combination with DBBM non-glycosylated rhBMP-2 is favorable, benefiting from an initially higher concentration of free rhBMP-2.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(453,'Analysis of hydrolyzable polyethylene glycol hydrogels and deproteinized bone mineral as delivery systems for glycosylated and non-glycosylated bone morphogenetic protein-2.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(454,'474-485');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(455,'2010-05-00 2010 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(456,replace('Number: 5\n27 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 20507370','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(457,'10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01551.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(458,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the impact of guided bone regeneration and defect dimension on wound healing at chemically modified titanium implant surfaces (modSLA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: ModSLA implants were placed at chronic-type lateral ridge defects of different heights (H1-H4: 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm) and randomly allocated to either (a) GBR (polyethylene glycol membrane + biphasic calcium phosphate) or (b) untreated control. At 2 and 8 weeks (n=6 dogs each), dissected blocks were processed for histomorphometrical analysis [e.g., percentage linear fill (PLF), regenerated area (RA)]. RESULTS: At 8 weeks, both groups revealed comparable mean PLF (%) [ CONTROL: H1 (26.1 +/- 5.8)-H4 (60.4 +/- 11.8); GBR: H1 (8.3 +/- 5.3)-H4 (50.7 +/- 23.1)] and RA (mm(2)) [ CONTROL: H1 (2.5 +/- 0.4)-H4 (7.4 +/- 4.1); GBR: H1 (1.8 +/- 1.0)-H4 (10.8 +/- 5.9)] values. A significant difference was observed for the mean PLF values at H1 defects. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that (i) modSLA titanium implants supported bone regeneration and osseointegration at H1-H4 defects and (ii) the present GBR procedure did not seem to improve the outcome of vertical bone regeneration, but tended to increase the mean RA values.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(459,'Impact of guided bone regeneration and defect dimension on wound healing at chemically modified hydrophilic titanium implant surfaces: an experimental study in dogs.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(460,'28-34');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(461,'2015-00-00 2015');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(462,replace('Number: 1\n55 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 24299007','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(463,'10.1111/clr.12296');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(464,'PURPOSE: The aim of this controlled clinical study was to compare a polyethylene glycol membrane (PEG) used for bone regeneration of peri-implant defects to a collagen membrane with respect to implant survival rate, dimensions of buccal peri-implant bone and mucosa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven patients who received single tooth implants with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) in the posterior maxilla or mandible were enrolled in the study. Intra-operative heights of bone defects were assessed prior to bone augmentation. The defects were augmented with xenogenic bone mineral and randomly covered either with a porcine collagen membrane (control) or with a PEG membrane (test). Five years after implant placement, clinical evaluation and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed. Remaining height of bone defect, horizontal bone thickness, level of mucosal margin, and mucosal thickness were assessed in CBCT images. The difference of height of bone defect at implant placement and at 5-year follow-up was calculated. The differences between the two groups were analyzed using two-sided t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: After 5 years, 32 patients could be included and exhibited an implant survival rate of 100% for both groups. The buccal vertical bone gain between implant placement and 5-year follow-up amounted at 4.3 ± 1.5 (SD) mm and 4.8 ± 2.6 (SD) mm for the control and the test group, respectively (P = 0.493). Neither the bone height nor the thickness reached statistical significant differences between the two groups. The distance between mucosal margin and implant shoulder resulted in 0.8 ± 0.7 (SD) mm in the control and 0.5 ± 0.8 (SD) mm in the test group (P = 0.198). The mucosal thickness reached 1.4 ± 0.5 (SD) mm in the control and 1.3 ± 0.3 (SD) mm in the test group (P = 0.715). There were no significant correlations between height of bone defect at baseline and at follow-up examination and between different 5-year parameters. CONCLUSION: A polyethylene glycol membrane used for bone regeneration of peri-implant defects performed as successfully as a collagen membrane with respect to implant survival rate and dimensions of the buccal peri-implant bone and mucosa after 5 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(465,'Cone beam computed tomography evaluation of regenerated buccal bone 5 years after simultaneous implant placement and guided bone regeneration procedures--a randomized, controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(466,'22');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(467,'28-37');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(468,'2011-01-00 2011 Jan');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(469,replace('Number: 1\n135 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 21039891','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(470,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2010.01987.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(471,'OBJECTIVES: the aim of the present study was to evaluate the dimensional changes of peri-implant tissues obtained by implant placement, bone and soft tissue augmentation, prosthetic reconstruction and 1 year of function using a new, non-invasive method for volumetric measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: in 16 patients, the missing central or lateral maxillary incisor was reconstructed with an implant-supported single crown. Impressions were taken before (t1), after implant placement with guided bone regeneration using DBBM and a PTFE membrane (t2), after soft tissue augmentation (t3), immediately after crown placement (t4) and 1 year later (t5). The cast models were optically scanned and digitally superimposed allowing qualitative and quantitative analysis of alterations of the labial peri-implant tissue contour. In addition, the crown length and papilla height were measured at crown placement (t4) and after 1 year (t5). RESULTS: fifteen patients were available for recall after 1 year. During therapy, a mean gain in distance in the labial direction of 1.27 ± 0.67 mm was observed after the surgical procedures. One year after crown insertion, a mean loss of 0.04 ± 0.31 mm in the labial direction was recorded. During the same period, the crown length increased by a mean of 0.22 ± 0.57 mm and the papilla height by 0.07 ± 0.61 mm. The degree and pattern of tissue change following crown insertion were highly variable between individuals, irrespective of the amount and quality of previously augmented tissues. CONCLUSIONS: the clinical procedures were effective in augmenting peri-implant tissue volume that remained stable to a high degree within 1 year after crown insertion. Large inter-individual variations regarding the tissue alterations were observed.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(472,'Volume gain and stability of peri-implant tissue following bone and soft tissue augmentation: 1-year results from a prospective cohort study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(473,'211-219');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(474,replace('Number: 2\n33 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 21722188','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(475,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02210.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(476,'OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not transmucosal healing at two-piece implants is as successful as submerged placement regarding crestal bone levels and patient satisfaction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Adults requiring implants in the anterior maxilla or mandible in regions 21-25, 11-15, 31-35 or 41-45 (WHO) were recruited for this randomized, controlled multi-center clinical trial of a 5-year duration. Randomization was performed at implantation allowing for either submerged or transmucosal healing. Final reconstructions were seated 6 months after implantation. Radiographic interproximal crestal bone levels and peri-implant soft tissue parameters were measured at implant placement (IP) (baseline), 6 and 12 months. Patient satisfaction was assessed by a questionnaire. A two-sided t-test (80% power, significance level α=0.05) was performed on bone-level changes at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven subjects were included in the 12-month analysis (submerged [S]: 52.5%, transmucosal [TM]: 47.2%). From IP to 6 months, the change in the crestal bone level was -0.32 mm (P<0.001) for the S group and -0.29 mm (P<0.001) for the TM group. From IP to 12 months, bone-level changes were statistically significant in both groups (S -0.47 mm, P<0.001; TM -0.48 mm, P<0.001). The mean differences of change in the bone levels between the two groups were not statistically significant at either time point, indicating the equivalence of both procedures. For both groups, very good results were obtained for soft tissue parameters and for patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Transmucosal healing of two-piece implants is as successful as the submerged healing mode with respect to tissue integration and patient satisfaction within the first 12 months after IP.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(477,'Submerged and transmucosal healing yield the same clinical outcomes with two-piece implants in the anterior maxilla and mandible: interim 1-year results of a randomized, controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(478,'30');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(479,'56-64');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(480,'2015-02-00 2015 Jan-Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(481,replace('Number: 1\n42 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 25615916','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(482,'10.11607/jomi.3689');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(483,'PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of two digital impression systems based on the same technology but different postprocessing correction modes of customized software, with consideration of several clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary master model with six implants located in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions was fitted with six cylindrical scan bodies. Scan bodies were placed at different angulations or depths apical to the gingiva. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed scans with either 3D Progress (MHT) or ZFX Intrascan (Zimmer Dental). Five different distances between implants (scan bodies) were measured, yielding five data points per impression and 100 per impression system. Measurements made with a high-accuracy three-dimensional coordinate measuring machine (CMM) of the master model acted as the true values. The values obtained from the digital impressions were subtracted from the CMM values to identify the deviations. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and implant angulation and depth were compared statistically. RESULTS: Experience of the operator, implant angulation, and implant depth were not associated with significant differences in deviation from the true values with both 3D Progress and ZFX Intrascan. Accuracy in the first scanned quadrant was significantly better with 3D Progress, but ZFX Intrascan presented better accuracy in the full arch. CONCLUSION: Neither of the two systems tested would be suitable for digital impression of multiple-implant prostheses. Because of the errors, further development of both systems is required.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(484,'Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(485,'88');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(486,'252-254');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(487,'The Journal of prosthetic dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(488,'0022-3913');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(489,'2002-09-00 2002 Sep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(490,replace('Number: 3\n26 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 12426492','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(491,'J Prosthet Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(492,'10.1067/mpr.2002.127897');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(493,'This clinical report describes the use of intraoral silica coating and silanization in an alternative bonding procedure for a 3-unit, all-ceramic, resin-bonded fixed partial denture.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(494,'New approach to bonding all-ceramic adhesive fixed partial dentures: a clinical report.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(495,'359-362');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(496,'Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(497,'1708-8240 1496-4155');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(498,'2014-12-00 2014 Nov-Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(499,replace('Number: 6\n5 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 25349116','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(500,'J Esthet Restor Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(501,'10.1111/jerd.12129');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(502,'Airborne particle abrasion of zirconia fixed dental prostheses.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(503,'155-159');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(504,'The journal of adhesive dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(505,'1461-5185');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(506,'2014-04-00 2014 Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(507,replace('Number: 2\n4 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 24683594','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(508,'J Adhes Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(509,'10.3290/j.jad.a31812');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(510,'PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of either an intermediate application of adhesive resin or flowable resin application on the adhesion of particulate filler composite (PFC) to glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unidirectional, pre-impregnated S2-glass fiber bundles (Dentapreg) (length: 40 mm; thickness: 0.5 mm) were obtained (N = 30, n = 10 per group) and secured in translucent silicone material with the adhesion surface exposed and photopolymerized. They were randomly divided into 3 groups for the following adhesion sequence: A) FRC+PFC, B) FRC+intermediate adhesive resin+PFC, C) FRC+flowable resin+PFC. The PFC was applied in a polyethylene mold onto the FRC and photopolymerized. PFCs were debonded from the FRC surface using shear bond test in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). After debonding, all specimens were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy to categorize the failure modes. The data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey''s tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: A significant difference was observed between the groups (p < 0.05). The highest mean bond strength value was obtained with the application of an intermediate layer of adhesive resin (group B: 19.4 ± 1.1 MPa) (p < 0.05) followed by group A (14.1 ± 0.6 MPa) and group C (10.4 ± 0.8 MPa), which were also significantly different from one another (p < 0.05). Group A exclusively presented a combination of partial cohesive failure in the PFC and adhesive failure between the FRC and PFC. While group B showed large cohesive defects in the FRC, in group C, only small cohesive failures were observed in the FRC. CONCLUSION: Based on the highest mean bond strength and the large cohesive failures within the FRC, application of an intermediate layer of adhesive resin on the S2-glass FRC surface prior to incremental build up of the PFC seems to be compulsory.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(511,'Effect of intermediate adhesive resin and flowable resin application on the interfacial adhesion of resin composite to pre-impregnated unidirectional S2-glass fiber bundles.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(512,'469-472');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(513,'2002-05-00 2002 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(514,replace('Number: 5\n116 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 12070506','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(515,'10.1067/mpr.2002.124365');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(516,'This article describes an alternative approach to conditioning an alloy surface prior to veneering with composite. The procedure is based on silica coating and silanization of the alloy surface, which can be performed chairside.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(517,'The use of chairside silica coating for different dental applications: a clinical report.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(518,'Copyright © 2012 The Editorial Council of the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(519,'107');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(520,'94-101');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(521,'1097-6841 0022-3913');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(522,replace('Number: 2\n70 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 22304743','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(523,'10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60031-6');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(524,'STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Adhesively bonded, industrially polymerized resins have been suggested as definitive restorative materials. It is claimed that such resins present similar mechanical properties to glass ceramic. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the tensile strength of polymeric crowns after conditioning with 2 different protocols: luted with self-adhesive or with conventional resin cements to dental abutments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Human teeth were prepared for crowns and divided into 13 groups (N=312, n=24 per group). Polymeric crowns were CAD/CAM fabricated and divided into 3 groups depending on different surface conditioning methods: A) No treatment, B) airborne-particle abrasion with 50 μm alumina, and C) airborne-particle abrasion with 110 μm alumina. Thereafter, the crowns were luted on dentin abutments with the following cements: 1) RXU (RelyX Unicem, self-adhesive), 2) GCM (G-Cem, self-adhesive), 3) ACG (artCem GI, conventional), and 4) VAR (Variolink II, conventional). Glass ceramic crowns milled and cemented with dual-polymerized resin cement (Variolink II) served as the control group. The tensile strength was measured initially (n=12) and after aging by mechanical thermocycling loading (1 200 000 cycles, 49 N, 5°C to 50°C) (n=12). The tensile strength (MPa) of all crowns was determined by the pull-off test (Zwick/Roell Z010; Ulm, Germany, 1mm/min). Subsequently, the failure types were classified. Data were analyzed with 2-way and 1-way ANOVA followed by a post hoc Scheffé test and t test (α=.05). RESULTS: No adhesion of the tested cements was observed on unconditioned polymeric CAD/CAM crowns and those luted with VAR. Among the tested cements, GCM showed significantly higher values after airborne-particle abrasion with 110 μm (initial: 2.8 MPa; after aging: 1 MPa) than 50 μm alumina (initial: 1.4 MPa; after aging: 0 MPa). No significant effect was found between 50 and 110 μm particle size alumina in combination with the other 2 cements. After aging, the tensile strength of the crowns luted with GCM (50 μm: 0 MPa and 110 μm: 1 MPa) and ACG (50 μm: 1 MPa and 110 μm: 1.2 MPa) was significantly lower than those luted with RXU (50 μm: 1.9 MPa and 110 μm: 2 MPa). All airborne particle abraded polymeric CAD/CAM crowns (initial: 1.4-2.8; 0-2 MPa) showed significantly lower tensile strength values than the control group (initial: 7.3 MPa; after aging: 6.4 MPa). Although with all polymeric specimens, failure type was adhesive between the cement and the crowns, the control group showed exclusively cohesive failures within the ceramic. CONCLUSIONS: Airborne-particle abrasion before cementation of polymeric CAD/CAM crowns minimally improved the tensile strength. Both the failure types and the tensile strength values of adhesively luted glass ceramic crowns showed superior results to adhesively cemented polymeric ones. Although the tensile strength results were low, crowns cemented with RXU showed, after aging, the highest tensile strength of all other tested groups.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(525,'Effect of surface conditioning with airborne-particle abrasion on the tensile strength of polymeric CAD/CAM crowns luted with self-adhesive and conventional resin cements.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(526,'63-70');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(527,replace('Number: 1\n10 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 23878833','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(528,'10.3290/j.jad.a30164');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(529,'PURPOSE: This study evaluated the repair bond strength of differently surface-conditioned press-on-metal ceramic to repair composites and determined the location of the accumulated stresses by finite element analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Press-on-metal ceramic disks (IPS InLine PoM, Ivoclar Vivadent) (N = 45, diameter: 3 mm, height: 2 mm) were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 15 per group) and conditioned with one of the following methods: 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) (Porcelain etch), tribochemical silica coating (TS) (CoJet), and an unconditioned group acted as the control (C). Each group was divided into three subgroups depending on the repair composite resins: a) Arabesk Top (V, a microhybrid; VOCO), b) Filtek Z250 (F, a hybrid;3M ESPE); c) Tetric EvoCeram (T, a nanohybrid; Ivoclar Vivadent) (n = 5 per subgroup). Repair composites disks (diameter: 1 mm, height: 1 mm) were photopolymerized on each ceramic block. Microshear bond strength (MSB) tests were performed (1 mm/min) and the obtained data were statistically analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey''s post-hoc test (α = 0.05). Failure types were analyzed under SEM. Vickers indentation hardness, Young''s modulus, and finite element analysis (FEA) were performed complementary to MSB tests to determine stress accumulation areas. RESULTS: MSB results were significantly affected by the surface conditioning methods (p = 0.0001), whereas the repair composite types did not show a significant effect (p = 0.108). The interaction terms between the repair composite and surface conditioning method were also statistically significant (p = 0.0001). The lowest MSB values (MPa ± SD) were obtained in the control group (V = 4 ± 0.8; F = 3.9 ± 0.7; T = 4.1 ± 0.7) (p < 0.05). While the group treated with T composite resulted in significantly lower MSB values for the HF group (T= 4.1 ± 0.8) compared to those of other composites (V = 8.1 ± 2.6; F = 7.6 ± 2.2) (p < 0.05), there were no significant differences when TS was used as a conditioning method (V = 5 ± 1.7; F = 4.7 ± 1; T = 6.2 ± 0.8) (p > 0.05). The control group presented exclusively adhesive failures. Cohesive failures in composite followed by mixed failure types were more common in HF and TS conditioned groups. Elasticity modulus of the composites were 22.9, 12.09, and 10.41 GPa for F, T, and V, respectively. Vickers hardness of the composites were 223, 232, and 375 HV for V, T, and F, respectively. Von Mises stresses in the FEA analysis for the V and T composites spread over a large area due to the low elastic modulus of the composite, whereas the F composite material accumulated more stresses at the bonded interface. CONCLUSION: Press-on-metal ceramic could best be repaired using tribochemical silica coating followed by silanization, regardless of the repair composite type in combination with their corresponding adhesive resins, providing that no cohesive ceramic failure was observed.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(530,'Microshear bond strength and finite element analysis of resin composite adhesion to press-on-metal ceramic for repair actions after various conditioning methods.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(531,'507-510');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(532,'2013-12-00 2013 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(533,replace('Number: 6\n8 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 24392486','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(534,'10.3290/j.jad.a31108');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(535,'PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different polymerization sequences employed during application of bis-GMAbased particulate filler composites (PFC) or a flowable resin (FR) on fiber-reinforced composite (FRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unidirectional, pre-impregnated S2-glass fibers (Dentapreg) and multidirectional preimpregnated E-glass fibers (Dentapreg) (length: 40 mm; thickness: 0.5 mm) were obtained (N = 144, n = 12 per group) and embedded in translucent silicone material with the adhesion surface exposed. The resulting specimens were randomly divided into 12 groups for the following application sequences: a) FRC+PFC (photopolymerized in one step), b) FRC+FR (photopolymerized in one step), c) FRC+PFC (photopolymerized individually), d) FRC+FR (photopolymerized individually), e) FRC (photopolymerized)+intermediate adhesive resin and PFC (photopolymerized in one step), f) FRC (photopolymerized)+intermediate adhesive resin and FR (photopolymerized in one step). The sequences of unidirectional (groups a to f) were repeated for multidirectional (groups g to l) FRCs. PFCs were debonded from the FRC surfaces using the shear bond test in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). On additional specimens from each FRC type, thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) was performed to characterize the fiber weight content (Wf) (N = 6, n = 3 per group). After debonding, all specimens were analyzed using SEM to categorize the failure modes. The data were statistically analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey''s tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant effects of the FRC type (S2 or E-glass) (p < 0.01), resin type (PFC or FR) (p < 0.01) and polymerization protocol (p < 0.05) were observed on the bond strength (MPa). Interaction terms were also significant (p < 0.05). The multidirectional FRC groups (g to l) showed significantly lower bond strengths (2.3 ± 0.2 to 7.3 ± 0.3 MPa) than did the unidirectional FRC groups (a to f) (10.7 ± 0.6 to 24.4 ± 0.8 MPa). Among the unidirectional FRC groups, the highest values were obtained with protocol f (24.4 ± 0.8), followed by protocol e (18.6 ± 0.4). PFC adhesion to unidirectional FRC was lower when FRC and PFC were polymerized in one step (protocol a: 11.3 ± 0.5) than individual polymerization (protocol c: 14.1 ± 0.5). The opposite situation was true for FR (protocol b: 17.5 ± 0.4; protocol d: 10.7 ± 0.6). Groups a to f presented exclusively mixed failures (a combination of partial cohesive failure in the PFC and adhesive failure between the FRC and PFC) and groups g to l demonstrated only adhesive failure (intact FRC no cohesive failure of PFC). TGA revealed 55 ± 3 wt% fiber content for multidirectional and 60 ± 3 wt% for unidirectional FRCs tested. CONCLUSION: Multidirectional pre-impregnated E-glass fibers cannot be recommended in combination with the PFC and FR materials tested in this study. Application of an intermediate adhesive resin layer increases the adhesion of both PFC and FR to unidirectional FRC. FRC and FR can be polymerized in one step, but FRC and PFC combinations should be polymerized individually.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(536,'Adhesion of resin materials to S2-glass unidirectional and E-glass multidirectional fiber reinforced composites: effect of polymerization sequence protocols.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(537,'1323-1331');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(538,'Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(539,'0109-5641');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(540,'2007-11-00 2007 Nov');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(541,replace('Number: 11\n168 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 17188745','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(542,'Dent Mater');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(543,'10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.011');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(544,'OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the durability of bond strength between resin cement and a feldspathic ceramic submitted to different etching regimens with and without silane coupling agent application. METHODS: Thirty-two blocks (6.4 mm x 6.4 mm x 4.8 mm) were fabricated using a microparticulate feldspathic ceramic (Vita VM7), ultrasonically cleaned with water for 5 min and randomly divided into four groups, according to the type of etching agent and silanization method: method 1, etching with 10% hydrofluoric (HF) acid gel for 1 min + silanization; method 2, HF only; method 3, etching with 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) for 5 min + silanization; method 4, APF only. Conditioned blocks were positioned in their individual silicone molds and resin cement (Panavia F) was applied on the treated surfaces. Specimens were stored in distilled water (37 degrees C) for 24h prior to sectioning. After sectioning the ceramic-cement blocks in x- and y-axis with a bonded area of approximately 0.6mm(2), the microsticks of each block were randomly divided into two storage conditions: Dry, immediate testing; TC, thermal cycling (12,000 times)+water storage for 150 d, yielding to eight experimental groups. Microtensile bond strength tests were performed in universal testing machine (cross-head speed: 1mm/min) and failure types were noted. Data obtained (MPa) were analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey''s test (alpha=0.05). RESULTS: Significant influence of the use of silane (p<0.0001), storage conditions (p=0.0013) and surface treatment were observed (p=0.0014). The highest bond strengths were achieved in both dry and thermocycled conditions when the ceramics were etched with HF acid gel and silanized (17.4 +/- 5.8 and 17.4 +/- 4.8 MPa, respectively). Silanization after HF acid gel and APF treatment increased the results dramatically (14.5+/-4.2-17.4+/-4.8 MPa) compared to non-silanized groups (2.6 +/- 0.8-8.9 +/- 3.1 MPa) where the failure type was exclusively (100%) adhesive between the cement and the ceramic. SIGNIFICANCE: Silanization of the feldspathic ceramic surface after APF or HF acid etching increased the microtensile bond strength results significantly, with the latter providing higher results. Long-term thermocycling and water storage did not decrease the results in silanized groups.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(545,'Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to feldpathic ceramic after different etching and silanization regimens in dry and aged conditions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(546,'85');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(547,'1-9');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(548,'Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(549,'1552-4981 1552-4973');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(550,'2008-04-00 2008 Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(551,replace('Number: 1\n114 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 17680669','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(552,'J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(553,'10.1002/jbm.b.30908');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(554,'The objective of this study was to evaluate the durability of bond strength between a resin cement and aluminous ceramic submitted to various surface conditioning methods. Twenty-four blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm(3)) of a glass-infiltrated zirconia-alumina ceramic (In-Ceram Zirconia Classic) were randomly divided into three surface treatment groups: ST1-Air-abrasion with 110-mum Al2O3 particles + silanization; ST2-Laboratory tribochemical silica coating method (110-microm Al2O3, 110-microm silica) (Rocatec) + silanization; ST3-Chairside tribochemical silica coating method (30-microm SiO(x)) (CoJet) + silanization. Each treated ceramic block was placed in its silicone mold with the treated surface exposed. The resin cement (Panavia F) was prepared and injected into the mold over the treated surface. Specimens were sectioned to achieve nontrimmed bar specimens (14 sp/block) that were randomly divided into two conditions: (a) Dry-microtensile test after sectioning; (b) Thermocycling (TC)-(6,000x, 5-55 degrees C) and water storage (150 days). Thus, six experimental groups were obtained (n = 50): Gr1-ST1 + dry; Gr2-ST1 + TC(;) Gr3-ST2 + dry; Gr4-ST2 + TC; Gr5-ST3 + dry; Gr6-ST3 + TC. After microtensile testing, the failure types were noted. ST2 (25.1 +/- 11) and ST3 (24.1 +/- 7.4) presented statistically higher bond strength (MPa) than that of ST1 (17.5 +/- 8) regardless of aging conditions (p < 0.0001). While Gr2 revealed the lowest results (13.3 +/- 6.4), the other groups (21.7 +/- 7.4-25. 9 +/- 9.1) showed statistically no significant differences (two-way ANOVA and Tukey''s test, alpha = 0.05). The majority of the failures were mixed (82%) followed by adhesive failures (18%). Gr2 presented significantly higher incidence of ADHESIVE failures (54%) than those of other groups (p = 0.0001). Both laboratory and chairside silica coating plus silanization showed durable bond strength. After aging, air-abrasion with 110-microm Al(2)O(3) + silanization showed the largest decrease indicating that aging is fundamental for bond strength testing for acid-resistant zirconia ceramics in order to estimate their long-term performance in the mouth.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(555,'Effect of conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of phosphate monomer-based cement on zirconia ceramic in dry and aged conditions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(556,'221-231');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(557,'1879-0097 0109-5641');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(558,replace('Number: 2\n62 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 18718654','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(559,'10.1016/j.dental.2008.07.002');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(560,'OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the effect of thermal- and mechanical-cycling on the shear bond strength of three low-fusing glassy matrix dental ceramics to commercial pure titanium (cpTi) when compared to conventional feldspathic ceramic fused to gold alloy. METHODS: Metallic frameworks (diameter: 5 mm, thickness: 4 mm) (N=96, n=12 per group) were cast in cpTi and gold alloy, airborne particle abraded with 150 microm aluminum oxide. Low-fusing glassy matrix ceramics and a conventional feldspathic ceramic were fired onto the alloys (thickness: 4 mm). Four experimental groups were formed; Gr1 (control group): Vita Omega 900-Au-Pd alloy; Gr2: Triceram-cpTi; Gr3: Super Porcelain Ti-22-cpTi and G4: Vita Titankeramik-cpTi. While half of the specimens from each ceramic-metal combination were randomly tested without aging (water storage at 37 degrees C for 24 h only), the other half were first thermocycled (6000 cycles, between 5 and 55 degrees C, dwell time: 13 s) and then mechanically loaded (20,000 cycles under 50 N load, immersion in distilled water at 37 degrees C). The ceramic-alloy interfaces were loaded under shear in a universal test machine (crosshead speed: 0.5 mm/min) until failure occurred. Failure types were noted and the interfaces of the representative fractured specimens from each group were examined with stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM). In an additional study (N=16, n=2 per group), energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis was performed from ceramic-alloy interfaces. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey''s test. RESULTS: Both ceramic-metal combinations (p<0.001) and aging conditions (p<0.001) significantly affected the mean bond strength values. Thermal- and mechanical-cycling decreased the bond strength (MPa) results significantly for Gr3 (33.4+/-4.2) and Gr4 (32.1+/-4.8) when compared to the non-aged groups (42.9+/-8.9, 42.4+/-5.2, respectively). Gr1 was not affected significantly from aging conditions (61.3+/-8.4 for control, 60.7+/-13.7 after aging) (p>0.05). Stereomicroscope images showed exclusively adhesive failure types at the opaque ceramic-cpTi interfacial zone with no presence of ceramic on the substrate surface but with a visible dark titanium oxide layer in Groups 2-4 except Gr1 where remnants of bonder ceramic was visible. EDS analysis from the interfacial zone for cpTi-ceramic groups showed predominantly 34.5-85.1% O(2) followed by 1.1-36.7% Al and 0-36.3% Si except for Super Porcelain Ti-22 where a small quantity of Ba (1.4-8.3%), S (0.7%) and Sn (35.3%) was found. In the Au-Pd alloy-ceramic interface, 56.4-69.9% O(2) followed by 15.6-26.2% Si, 3.9-10.9% K, 2.8-6% Na, 4.4-9.6% Al and 0-0.04% Mg was observed. SIGNIFICANCE: After thermal-cycling for 6000 times and mechanical-cycling for 20,000 times, Triceram-cpTi combination presented the least decrease among other ceramic-alloy combinations when compared to the mean bond strength results with Au-Pd alloy-Vita Omega 900 combination.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(561,'Evaluation of interface characterization and adhesion of glass ceramics to commercially pure titanium and gold alloy after thermal- and mechanical-loading.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(562,'367-374');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(563,'2002-10-00 2002 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(564,replace('Number: 4\n18 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 12447212','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(565,'10.1067/mpr.2002.128175');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(566,'STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: The separation of core materials from titanium posts, which have a low modulus of elasticity, has been identified as a problem in restorative dentistry. PURPOSE: This study evaluated the resistance to torsional forces of various core materials adapted to differently conditioned titanium posts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven hundred and twenty specimens were tested consisting of: 6 core materials and 5 surface conditioning techniques for 2 kinds of opaquers with 10 specimens in each group (6 x 5 x 2 x 10=600) plus 6 core materials and 2 opaquers were tested and considered as control groups on nonconditioned titanium posts, each group containing 10 specimens (6 x 2 x 10=120). The custom-made pure titanium posts were conditioned with the following products: Silicoater Classical, Silicoater MD, Rocatec, Kevloc, and Siloc surface-conditioning systems. Subsequently, 6 core materials with different compositions (Durafill, Adaptic, Coradent, Ti-Core, Hytac Aplitip, and Photac-Fil Aplitip) were applied to titanium posts that were previously coated with 2 types of light-polymerized opaquers, either Artglass or Dentacolor. Sixty air-abraded titanium posts (250 microm, 30 seconds) were used as controls for each core material. Following thermocycling (5 degrees -55 degrees C, 30 seconds, 5,000 cycles), maximum torsional forces were determined with an electronic torque movement key. Data were statistically analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance followed by 2-way analysis of variance (P<.05). RESULTS: Significantly higher mean torsional forces were observed with respect to Siloc (20.4 Newton decimeter [dNm]), Silicoater Classical (18.6 dNm), Silicoater MD (18.2 dNm), and Rocatec (17.0 dNm) systems compared with the mean for the untreated control group (14.6 dNm) (P<.001). The Kevloc system (10.4 dNm) demonstrated no significant difference compared with the control group (P>.001). The Kevloc system in combination with the Artglass opaquer and Photac-Fil Aplitip (0.00 dNm) core material showed no resistance against torsional forces. Significant differences were observed between hybrid core materials and microfilled composite, compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer core materials (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the resistance to torsional forces for the core materials on titanium posts increased with the use of chemical surface-conditioning techniques and varied in accordance with the opaquer type. Type of core material also significantly influenced the resistance after thermocycling.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(567,'Resistance of core materials against torsional forces on differently conditioned titanium posts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(568,'Implant dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(569,'1538-2982 1056-6163');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(570,'2013-08-00 2013 Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(571,replace('Number: 4\n22 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 23817542','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(572,'Implant Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(573,'10.1097/ID.0b013e3182980fe9');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(574,'PURPOSE: To obtain an accurate CAD/CAM metal framework over 6 implants using a Chairside Intraoral Scanner based on the principle of active (optical) wavefront sampling. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six prototype cylindrical scan bodies screwed in the implants were used to obtain an intraoral digital impression. A conventional resin tooth try-in was fabricated and digitized with an extraoral scanner, and this dataset was merged to the digital data obtained from the intraoral impression to calculate the best framework design with advanced CAD software. The framework was fabricated with a 5-axis computer numerical control milling unit. Three clinical tests (saliva intrusion, Sheffield test, and screw resistance test) were performed to assess the fit of the framework. RESULTS: Under 3 clinical tests, an accurate fit was observed. CONCLUSION: The case presented in this report proposes a new clinical protocol for obtaining accurate digital impressions of multiple implants.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(575,'A clinical protocol for intraoral digital impression of screw-retained CAD/CAM framework on multiple implants based on wavefront sampling technology.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(576,'1757-9988 1461-5185');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(577,'2015-02-00 2015 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(578,replace('Number: 1\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 25707346','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(579,'10.3290/j.jad.a33730');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(580,'Editorial: response to letter to the editor.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(581,'Copyright © 2011 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(582,'478-487');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(583,'2012-05-00 2012 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(584,replace('Number: 5\n28 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 22196897','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(585,'10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.023');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(586,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture load of veneered anterior zirconia crowns using normal and Weibull distribution of complete and censored data. METHODS: Standardized zirconia frameworks for maxillary canines were milled using a CAD/CAM system and randomly divided into 3 groups (N=90, n=30 per group). They were veneered with three veneering ceramics, namely GC Initial ZR, Vita VM9, IPS e.max Ceram using layering technique. The crowns were cemented with glass ionomer cement on metal abutments. The specimens were then loaded to fracture (1 mm/min) in a Universal Testing Machine. The data were analyzed using classical method (normal data distribution (μ, σ); Levene test and one-way ANOVA) and according to the Weibull statistics (s, m). In addition, fracture load results were analyzed depending on complete and censored failure types (only chipping vs. total fracture together with chipping). RESULTS: When computed with complete data, significantly higher mean fracture loads (N) were observed for GC Initial ZR (μ=978, σ=157; s=1043, m=7.2) and VITA VM9 (μ=1074, σ=179; s=1139; m=7.8) than that of IPS e.max Ceram (μ=798, σ=174; s=859, m=5.8) (p<0.05) by classical and Weibull statistics, respectively. When the data were censored for only total fracture, IPS e.max Ceram presented the lowest fracture load for chipping with both classical distribution (μ=790, σ=160) and Weibull statistics (s=836, m=6.5). When total fracture with chipping (classical distribution) was considered as failure, IPS e.max Ceram did not show significant fracture load for total fracture (μ=1054, σ=110) compared to other groups (GC Initial ZR: μ=1039, σ=152, VITA VM9: μ=1170, σ=166). According to Weibull distributed data, VITA VM9 showed significantly higher fracture load (s=1228, m=9.4) than those of other groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Both classical distribution and Weibull statistics for complete data yielded similar outcomes. Censored data analysis of all ceramic systems based on failure types is essential and brings additional information regarding the susceptibility to chipping or total fracture.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(587,'The fracture load and failure types of veneered anterior zirconia crowns: an analysis of normal and Weibull distribution of complete and censored data.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(588,'586-590');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(589,'2004-07-00 2004 Jul');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(590,replace('Number: 6\n44 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 15134947','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(591,'10.1016/j.dental.2003.10.003');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(592,'OBJECTIVES: In this in vitro study, the effect of various drying (surface reaction) times of a commercial silane, other than that recommended by the manufacturer (at least 5 min), on the bond strength between the resin composite and silica coated base and noble alloys was evaluated. METHODS: A total of 112 disc specimens (9 mm diameter and 0.5 mm thickness) were cast out of two types of alloy designed for ceramic firing, one of which was a noble (Degunorm) (gold-silver-platinum) and the other a base alloy (Wiron 99) (nickel-chromium-molybdenum). The specimens were assigned to two main groups according to each alloy type. These two main groups were further divided into seven subgroups, having eight specimens each. The specimens of both alloy types were air-abraded with 30 microm silica (SiO2) coated alumina (Al2O3) (CoJet-Sand, ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). The conditioned surfaces were coated with 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (MPS) and were allowed to react and dry for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 min, respectively, before the opaquer was applied. Immediately after the waiting periods for the silane to dry, first opaquer and then resin composite were applied. After storage in water for 30 days at 37 degrees C and thermocycling (5000 cycles, 5-55 degrees C), shear tests were performed using the universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. RESULTS: Analysis of data showed no significant difference in bond strength for any silane drying and reaction period for both base and noble alloys between 1 and 7 min (ANOVA, P = 0.05) (Degunorm: 5.8 - 7.4 MPa and Wiron 99: 7.2 - 10.2 MPa, respectively). Bond strengths of resin composite to base alloys were significantly higher than those to noble alloys at 2, 3 and 5 min (P = 0.0045, P = 0.05, P = 0.002, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE: In order to optimize the flow of laboratory work, the silane solution drying time might be reduced to 1 min for both base and noble alloys.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(593,'Effect of drying time of 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane on the shear bond strength of a composite resin to silica-coated base/noble alloys.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(594,'207-210');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(595,'2013-06-00 2013 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(596,replace('Number: 3\n20 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 23700578','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(597,'10.3290/j.jad.a29717');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(598,'PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of different surface conditioning protocols on the repair strength of resin composite to the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex, simulating the clinical chipping phenomenon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty disk-shaped zirconia core (Lava Zirconia, 3M ESPE) (diameter: 3 mm) specimens were veneered circumferentially with a feldspathic veneering ceramic (VM7, Vita Zahnfabrik) (thickness: 2 mm) using a split metal mold. They were then embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic with the bonding surfaces exposed. Specimens were randomly assigned to one of the following surface conditioning protocols (n = 10 per group): group 1, veneer: 4% hydrofluoric acid (HF) (Porcelain Etch) + core: aluminum trioxide (50-µm Al2O3) + core + veneer: silane (ESPE-Sil); group 2: core: Al2O3 (50 µm) + veneer: HF + core + veneer: silane; group 3: veneer: HF + core: 30 µm aluminum trioxide particles coated with silica (30 µm SiO2) + core + veneer: silane; group 4: core: 30 µm SiO2 + veneer: HF + core + veneer: silane. Core and veneer ceramic were conditioned individually but no attempt was made to avoid cross contamination of conditioning, simulating the clinical intraoral repair situation. Adhesive resin (VisioBond) was applied to both the core and the veneer ceramic, and resin composite (Quadrant Posterior) was bonded onto both substrates using polyethylene molds and photopolymerized. After thermocycling (6000 cycles, 5°C-55°C), the specimens were subjected to shear bond testing using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Failure modes were identified using an optical microscope, and scanning electron microscope images were obtained. Bond strength data (MPa) were analyzed statistically using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the Bonferroni Holm correction (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Group 3 demonstrated significantly higher values (MPa) (8.6 ± 2.7) than those of the other groups (3.2 ± 3.1, 3.2 ± 3, and 3.1 ± 3.5 for groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively) (p < 0.001). All groups showed exclusively adhesive failure between the repair resin and the core zirconia. The incidence of cohesive failure in the ceramic was highest in group 3 (8 out of 10) compared to the other groups (0/10, 2/10, and 2/10, in groups 1, 2, and 4, respectively). SEM images showed that air abrasion on the zirconia core only also impinged on the veneering ceramic where the etching pattern was affected. CONCLUSION: Etching the veneer ceramic with HF gel and silica coating of the zirconia core followed by silanization of both substrates could be advised for the repair of the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(599,'Effect of surface conditioning modalities on the repair bond strength of resin composite to the zirconia core / veneering ceramic complex.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(600,'© 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(601,'882-889');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(602,'2012-12-00 2012 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(603,replace('Number: 6\n60 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 21176099','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(604,'10.1111/j.1708-8208.2010.00322.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(605,'BACKGROUND: Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) temporary abutments have been recently introduced for making implant-supported provisional single crowns. Little information is available in the dental literature on the durability of provisional implant-supported restorations. PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the fracture strength of implant-supported composite resin crowns on PEEK and solid titanium temporary abutments, and to analyze the failure types. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three types of provisional abutments, RN synOcta Temporary Meso Abutment (PEEK; Straumann), RN synOcta Titanium Post for Temporary Restorations (Straumann), and Temporary Abutment Engaging NobRplRP (Nobel Biocare) were used, and provisional screw-retained crowns using composite resin (Solidex) were fabricated for four different locations in the maxilla. The specimens were tested in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute until fracture occurred. The failure types were analyzed and further categorized as irreparable (Type 1) or reparable (Type 2). RESULTS: No significant difference was found between different abutment types. Only for the position of the maxillary central incisor, composite resin crowns on PEEK temporary abutments showed significantly lower (p < 0.05) fracture strength (95 ± 21 N) than those on titanium temporary abutments (1,009 ± 94 N). The most frequently experienced failure types were cohesive fractures of the composite resin crowns (75 out of 104), followed by screw loosening (18 out of 104). According to reparability, the majority of the specimens were classified as Type 1 (82 out of 104). Type 2 failures were not often observed (22 out of 104). CONCLUSIONS: Provisional crowns on PEEK abutments showed similar fracture strength as titanium temporary abutments except for central incisors. Maxillary right central incisor composite resin crowns on PEEK temporary abutments fractured below the mean anterior masticatory loading forces reported to be approximately 206 N.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(606,'Fracture strength and failure mode of maxillary implant-supported provisional single crowns: a comparison of composite resin crowns fabricated directly over PEEK abutments and solid titanium abutments.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(607,'© 2013 by the American College of Prosthodontists.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(608,'232-235');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(609,'Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(610,'1532-849X 1059-941X');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(611,replace('Number: 3\n2 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 24118630','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(612,'J Prosthodont');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(613,'10.1111/jopr.12096');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(614,'The congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisor is the most common agenesis in the anterior region. There are several treatment options for this anomaly, which causes severe deficiencies: orthodontic space closure, tooth-supported restoration, or single-tooth implant. Each of these solutions has a high degree of success if used in the correct situation. An implant-supported restoration with an interdisciplinary approach provides a predictable outcome. This article describes the treatment of a patient with agenesis of the maxillary left lateral incisor. After orthodontic space management, it was decided to restore the tooth with an all-ceramic crown cemented on a zirconia custom abutment, which fractured after only 6 weeks of service. Fractographic analysis revealed that the failure was due to over-reduction of the buccal wall to correct the labial emergence of the implant. Zirconia abutments should be designed with even wall thicknesses of at least 0.8 mm to avoid areas that may compromise functional success.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(615,'Prosthodontic considerations in the implant-supported all-ceramic restoration of congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisor: a clinical report.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(616,'13');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(617,'551-560');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(618,'2011-12-00 2011 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(619,replace('Number: 6\n25 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 21246072','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(620,'10.3290/j.jad.a19815');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(621,'PURPOSE: To evaluate the surface pH, contact angle and microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of a resin-cement to feldspathic ceramic after various surface conditioning methods (SC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For pH measurements, 96 glass-ceramic disks were assigned into 12 groups (n = 8): SC1-pH: No ceramic surface conditioning (control); SC2-pH: hydrofluoric-acid (HF) 9% 1 min; SC3-pH: SC2-pH+wash/dry; SC4-pH: SC3-pH+silane; SC5-pH: HF 4% 1 min; SC6-pH: SC5-pH+wash/dry; SC7-pH: SC6 -pH +silane; SC8-pH: HF 5% 1 min; SC9-pH: SC8-pH+wash/dry; SC10-pH: SC9-pH+silane; SC11-pH: SC9-pH +neutralizer+wash/dry+sonic-cleaning; SC12-pH: SC11-pH+silane. For contact angle analysis, 40 disks were divided into 5 groups (n = 8): SC1-ca: no conditioning; SC2-ca: HF 9%+wash/dry; SC3-ca: HF 4%+wash/dry; SC4 -ca: HF 5%+wash/dry; SC5-ca: HF 5%+neutralizer+wash/dry+ultrasonic-cleaning. To evaluate the MTBS, 40 blocks were distributed into 4 groups SC (N = 10): SC1-bond: HF 9% 1 min+silane; SC2-bond: HF 4% 1 min+silane; SC3-bond: HF 5% 1 min+silane; SC4-bond: HF 5% 1 min+neutralizer+wash/dry+ultrasonic cleaning+silane. The resin cement was applied on the treated surfaces and bar specimens were produced that were submitted to 2 conditions: dry: immediate MTBS; TC: storage for 150 days and thermocycling 5000x. Fifty bar specimens were produced per group (n = 50). Contact angle and pH results were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey''s test (α = 0.05). Microtensile data were submitted to two-way ANOVA and Tukey''s test (a = 0.05). RESULTS: pH values were significantly higher for SC6-ph (11.5 ± 2.6) when compared to those of SC5-pH (2.7 ± 0.4), SC8-pH (2.7 ± 0.2) and SC2-pH (2.2 ± 0.2) (p < 0.00, ANOVA). SC1-ca had the largest contact angle (48 ± 16 degrees) and SC3-ca the smallest (9.4 ± 7.7 degrees). The results of the MTBS test were as follows: independent of the storage condition, SC2-bond = SC1-bond > SC3-bond = SC4-bond. SC4-bond had the lowest MTBS value after TC (10.6 ± 2.6 MPa). CONCLUSION: The acid neutralization step appears to be dispensable, since the washing/drying promoted similar pH values. That condition promoted a high contact angle and unstable resin microtensile bond strength to glass ceramic.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(622,'Resin bonding to a feldspar ceramic after different ceramic surface conditioning methods: evaluation of contact angle, surface pH, and microtensile bond strength durability.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(623,'804-813');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(624,'2004-11-00 2004 Nov');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(625,replace('Number: 9\n94 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 15451235','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(626,'10.1016/j.dental.2003.10.009');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(627,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reactions of silanes prior to attaching the composite to titanium and evaluate these silanes as coupling agents. Veneered titanium may be used as a prosthetic material. METHODS: Two silane solutions, a mixture of both gamma-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane and vinyltriisopropoxysilane, and tris(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl)isocyanurate were prepared as 2 wt% in two different (95% 2-propanol and 90% acetone) solutions. A control, 2 wt% gamma-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane was prepared in both solutions. These six silane solutions were applied onto flat titanium surfaces. The samples (N = 250) were divided into two main groups: air-dried (room temperature) and heat cured for 1 h at 110 degrees C. Sinfony veneering composite was applied and light-cured on the titanium. The control group was non-silanized. The specimens were assigned to two subgroups: not thermocycled, and thermocycled (5000 cycles, 5-55 degrees C). Shear bond strength of the composite was tested at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm min(-1). Fresh silane solution hydrolysis, and condensation reaction on titanium surface were monitored by FTIR spectrometry. RESULTS: Dry samples could be successfully tested, while thermocycling after 3700 cycles had gradually de-bonded the composite from the silanized titanium substrate. For dry samples, statistical analysis (ANOVA) showed that solvent and silane significantly affected the shear bond strength. The silane mixture in 2-propanol reacted at room temperature yielded 11.3 MPa (Standard deviation, SD, 3.6 MPa) and on the other hand, tris(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl)isocyanurate in 2-propanol yielded 10.7 MPa (SD 8.0 MPa) and gamma-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane 20.4 MPa (SD 12.2 MPa). Non-silanized samples yielded 4.8 MPa (SD 2.1 MPa). SIGNIFICANCE: In all solvents used, silanes reacted chemically with the titanium surface and covalent Si-O-Ti- and -Si-O-Si- bonds were evident.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(628,'The effect of a 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane and vinyltriisopropoxysilane blend and tris(3-trimethoxysilylpropyl)isocyanurate on the shear bond strength of composite resin to titanium metal.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(629,'97');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(630,'78-84');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(631,'2007-02-00 2007 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(632,replace('Number: 2\n38 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 17341375','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(633,'10.1016/j.prosdent.2007.01.004');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(634,'STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Survival rates of implants in posterior regions vary among clinical studies. Problems occur more often in the posterior segment of the maxilla due to proximity of the maxillary sinus and reduced quality or quantity of alveolar bone. PURPOSE: This clinical study evaluated the treatment outcomes of 3 brands of implants in the posterior maxillae and mandibles of 63 patients. Treatment outcomes of all implants were assessed according to implant type, location, patient gender, periodontal status, and prosthesis type. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 203 implants-105 ITI (ITI), 53 Camlog (CAM), and 45 Frialit (FRI)-were placed in 63 patients (38 women, 25 men). One hundred twelve implants were located in the posterior mandible and 91 in the posterior maxilla. All implants were longer than 10 mm and had a diameter larger than 3.5 mm. Implants in the ITI group were placed in a 1-stage surgery. The CAM and FRI groups were treated with a 2-stage surgical protocol. Implants were not loaded until osseointegration was complete, which was determined clinically and radiographically. At that point, implants were restored with 50 single crowns and 81 fixed partial dentures (FPDs). While 11 FPDs connected implants to natural teeth, 70 FPDs were supported by implants only. Standardized radiographs were made, and clinical parameters were recorded at prosthesis insertion (baseline) and at each recall evaluation (6, 12, 24, and 36 months). Plaque index (PI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), peri-implant probing depth (PD), and radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL) levels were recorded at baseline, along with any biological and mechanical complications. Repeated-measures ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, and paired samples tests were used for statistical analysis (alpha=.05). RESULTS: One implant was lost during the osseointegration period in 1 woman due to infection. The cumulative implant treatment outcome was 99.3%. At the 3-year recall, plaque accumulation was significantly higher than baseline scores (P=.01, Wilcoxon signed rank test). Eight percent of the patients presented>2 mm PD at 2-year recall. The influence of observation time was found to be significant for the mean MBL values between groups (P=.001). When MBL values were compared between groups, no significant differences were found. For 1 patient in the FRI group, abutment loosening was observed and both the crown and the abutment were replaced. Patient satisfaction in all groups was high. CONCLUSION: The 3 brands of implants evaluated in this study exhibited similar positive treatment outcomes after 3 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(635,'Three-year treatment outcomes with three brands of implants placed in the posterior maxilla and mandible of partially edentulous patients.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(636,'195-202');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(637,'Dental materials journal');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(638,'0287-4547');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(639,'2008-03-00 2008 Mar');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(640,replace('Number: 2\n15 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 18540392','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(641,'Dent Mater J');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(642,'10.4012/dmj.27.195');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(643,'This study compared the fracture strengths and analyzed the failure types of direct, surface-retained, anterior fixed-partial-dentures (FPD), reinforced with four types of fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) versus non-fiber-reinforced FPDs made of three particulate filler composites (PFC). To this end, surface-retained anterior FPDs (N = 70, 10 per group) were prepared and divided into seven experimental groups, where Group 1: FRC1 (everStick) + PFC1 (Clearfil Photo Posterior); Group 2: FRC2 (BR 100) + PFC1; Group 3: FRC3 (Interling) + PFC1; Group 4: FRC4 (Ribbond) + PFC1; Group 5: PFC1 only; Group 6: PFC2 only (Sinfony); and Group 7: PFC3 only (Estenia). Fracture strength test was performed after water storage at 37 degrees C for three days (universal testing machine, 1 mm/min). No significant differences were found among the four FRC types veneered with PFC1 (1490 +/- 548--1951 +/- 335 N) (p < 0.05) (ANOVA, Tukey''s test). Among all the experimental groups, PFC1 presented a significantly higher mean value (2061 +/- 270 N) than PFC2 (1340 +/- 395 N) (p < 0.05) and all the other FRC-reinforced groups (p < 0.05). Complete pontic fracture was 100% and 70% for PFC2 and PFC3 respectively.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(644,'Fracture strength of direct surface-retained fixed partial dentures: effect of fiber reinforcement versus the use of particulate filler composites only.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(645,'33');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(646,'877-879');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(647,'2017-08-00 2017 Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(648,replace('Number: 8\n16 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 28552334','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(649,'10.1016/j.dental.2017.05.001');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(650,'Fiber-reinforced composites in fixed prosthodontics-Quo vadis?');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(651,'© 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(652,'693-699');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(653,'Clinical and experimental dental research');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(654,'2057-4347');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(655,'2020-12-00 2020 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(656,replace('Number: 6\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPMID: 32902165 \nPMCID: PMC7745071','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(657,'Clin Exp Dent Res');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(658,'10.1002/cre2.325');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(659,'OBJECTIVES: Creating a tooth-like appearance by use of dental ceramics is still a challenge. Opalescence is a unique property of dental enamel, attempted to be mimicked by dental restorative materials. This study aimed to assess the effect of ceramic thickness on opalescence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four discs were fabricated of feldspathic ceramic, IPS e.max, zirconia and Enamic ceramics with 10 mm diameter and 0.5 and 1 mm thicknesses (n = 12). The opalescence of ceramic specimens was calculated by measuring the difference in yellow-blue axis (CIE ∆b*) and red-green axis (CIE ∆a*) between the transmitted and reflected spectra. One-way ANOVA was applied to compare the opalescence of different ceramic specimens with variable thicknesses at .05 level of significance. RESULTS: The opalescence of feldspathic, IPS e.max, zirconia and Enamic ceramic specimens with 0.5 mm thickness was 1.06 ± 0.15, 3.39 ± 0.15, 1.98 ± 0.15 and 1.44 ± 0.15, respectively. By increasing the thickness to 1 mm, the opalescence of feldspathic, IPS e.max, zirconia and Enamic ceramics changed to 1.12 ± 0.15, 1.47 ± 0.15, 3.85 ± 0.15 and 2.00 ± 0.15, respectively. In all groups except for IPS e.max, the mean opalescence of 1-mm-thick specimens was higher than that of 0.5-mm-thick specimens. CONCLUSION: Type and thickness of ceramic affect its opalescence. The opalescence of all ceramic specimens tested in this study with 0.5 and 1 mm thicknesses was lower than that of the enamel.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(660,'The effect of ceramic thickness on opalescence.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(661,'2018');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(662,'4734986');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(663,'BioMed research international');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(664,'2314-6141 2314-6133');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(665,'2018-00-00 2018');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(666,replace('23 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPMID: 30515400 \nPMCID: PMC6236806','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(667,'Biomed Res Int');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(668,'10.1155/2018/4734986');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(669,'Fiber-Reinforced Composites for Dental Applications.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(670,'264-269');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(671,'Current oral health reports');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(672,'2196-3002');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(673,replace('Number: 4\n8 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPMID: 30524930 \nPMCID: PMC6244566','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(674,'Curr Oral Health Rep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(675,'10.1007/s40496-018-0191-1');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(676,'PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Defective dental restorations are amongst the most common encounters in general dental practice. Replacement of defective restorations is often costly and commonly results in the sacrifice of sound tooth structure, thereby compromising the vitality of the dental pulp, potentially resulting in the acceleration of the restoration cycle and premature loss of the restored tooth. With advances in adhesive dentistry, ''reparative dentistry'' is becoming an important area of minimally invasive dentistry. This article highlights the detrimental biological effects of restoration replacement and provides an overview of current knowledge and understanding of restoration repair as a safe and effective alternative approach to replacement. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature reviewed showed that a growing body of evidence from clinical studies indicates that repaired restorations have similar survival outcomes in patients with low and medium caries risk compared to replaced restorations and are clinically acceptable over a 12-year follow-up of clinical service. Teeth with repaired restorations are less likely to require aggressive interventions such as endodontic treatment or extraction compared to those with replaced restorations. SUMMARY: Repair options should be carried out wherever possible as minimally interventional procedures in order to increase the longevity of the remaining part of the restoration and the restored tooth unit. Restoration replacement should be considered as the last resort when there are no other viable alternatives.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(677,'Reparative Dentistry: Possibilities and Limitations.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(678,'121');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(679,'111676');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(680,'Materials science & engineering. C, Materials for biological applications');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(681,'1873-0191 0928-4931');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(682,'2021-02-00 2021 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(683,replace('0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Netherlands\nPMID: 33579434','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(684,'Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(685,'10.1016/j.msec.2020.111676');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(686,'Retraction notice to "Bioactivity, antibacterial activity and functionality of zirconia doped zinc phosphate bioglasses for application in dentistry" [Mater. Sci. Eng. C 114 (202020) 111052].');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(687,'21');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(688,'BMC oral health');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(689,'1472-6831');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(690,'2021-01-21 2021 Jan 21');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(691,replace('Number: 1\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPMID: 33478459 \nPMCID: PMC7819204','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(692,'BMC Oral Health');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(693,'10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(694,'BACKGROUND: The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced through a direct digital workflow were reported. METHODS: A MEDLINE (Pubmed) search of the relevant English-language literature spanning from January 1st 2015 until March 31st 2020 was conducted. In vitro studies comparing digital implant impression accuracy by different IOS devices or in vitro studies examining differences in accuracy between digital and conventional impression procedures were included. Also, RCTs, clinical trials and case series on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, manufactured completely digitally were included. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting on restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow, case reports and non-English language articles were excluded. The aim was to investigate the accuracy of IOS for single and multiple fixed implant restorations compared to the conventional impression methods and report on the variables that influence it. Finally, this study aimed to report on the survival and success of fixed implant-retained restorations fabricated using the direct digital workflow. RESULTS: For the single and short-span implant sites, IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression was identified. Moreover, complete-arch IOS impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. Factors related to scanbody design as well as scanner generation, scanning range and interimplant distance were found to influence complete-arch scanning accuracy. Single implant-retained monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates and minor complications for short to medium follow-up periods. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Nevertheless, intraoral scanning exhibited high accuracy both for single and multiple implant restorations. Available literature on single-implant monolithic restorations manufactured through a complete digital workflow shows promising results for a follow-up of 3-5 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(695,'The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(696,'181-190');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(697,'2013-04-00 2013 Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(698,replace('Number: 2\n55 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 23534025','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(699,'10.3290/j.jad.a28883');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(700,'PURPOSE: This randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial evaluated the short-term survival rate of indirect resin composite and ceramic laminate veneers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 patients (mean age: 48.6 years) received 46 indirect resin composite (Estenia; n = 23) and ceramic laminate veneers (IPS Empress Esthetic; n = 23) on the maxillary anterior teeth. Veneer preparations with incisal overlap were performed and existing resin composite restorations of good quality were not removed but conditioned using silica coating (CoJet) and silanization (ESPE-Sil). Enamel and dentin were etched and rinsed; adhesive resin (ExciTE) was then applied. After cementation (Variolink Veneer), restorations were evaluated at baseline and thereafter every 6 months for up to 3 years using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: Seventeen laminate veneers were bonded onto intact teeth and 29 on teeth having existing resin composite restorations. In total, 3 failures were observed in the form of debonding (n = 1) and fracture (n = 2) in the group of resin composite laminate veneers. No significant difference was observed between the survival rates of composite and ceramic laminate veneers (Estenia: 87%, IPS Empress Esthetic: 100%; p > 0.05). The overall survival rate was 93.5% (Kaplan-Meier). Of the 43 laminate veneers, minor voids and defects were observed in 6 of the composite and 3 of the ceramic veneers. Slight staining at the margins (n = 3) and slightly rough surfaces were more frequently observed for the resin composite laminate veneers (n = 18) up to the final recall. CONCLUSION: Early findings of this clinical trial on two veneer materials showed statistically similar survival rates. Surface quality changes were more frequent in the composite veneer material.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(701,'Randomized clinical trial of indirect resin composite and ceramic veneers: up to 3-year follow-up.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(702,'Copyright © 2017 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(703,'1392-1401');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(704,'2017-12-00 2017 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(705,replace('Number: 12\n20 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 29079354','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(706,'10.1016/j.dental.2017.09.010');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(707,'OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the luting agent on the application of laminate veneers (LVs) in an accelerated fatigue and load-to-failure test after thermo-cyclic aging. METHODS: Sound maxillary central incisors (N=40) were randomly divided into four groups to receive LVs (Li(2)Si(2)O(5)) that were adhesively bonded: Group CEMF: Adhesive cement (Variolink Esthetic LC), fatigue test; Group CEMLF: Adhesive cement, load-to-failure test; Group COMF: Resin composite (Enamel HFO), fatigue test; Group COMLF: Resin composite, load-to-failure test. The specimens were thermo-mechanically aged (1.2×10(6) cycles at 1.7Hz/50N, 8000 cycles 5-55°C) and then subjected to either accelerated fatigue (5Hz, 25N increasing after each 500 cycles) or load to failure (1mm/min). Failure types were classified and data analyzed using chi-square, Kaplan Meier survival, Log Rank (Mantel-Cox) and independent-samples t-test. RESULTS: After thermo-mechanical aging, fracture resistance (p<0.000) was higher in the composite groups. Kaplan Meier survival rates showed significant difference (p<0.001) between the composite (mean load: 1165N; mean cycles: 22.595) and the cement groups (mean load: 762.5N; mean cycles: 14.569). The same differences were observed in the load to failure test (cement M=629.4N, SD±212.82 and composite M=927.59N, SD±261.06); t (18)=-2.80, p=0.01. Failure types were observed as fractures and chipping in group CEMF, all other groups were predominantly adhesive failures between the luting agent and the laminate veneer. SIGNIFICANCE: The delivery of laminate veneers using a direct restorative composite rather than a resin cement resulted in significantly less chipping and fractures, higher fracture strength in both accelerated fatigue and load-to-failure.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(708,'Effect of luting agent on the load to failure and accelerated-fatigue resistance of lithium disilicate laminate veneers.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(709,'© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(710,'31');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(711,'561-571');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(712,'2019-11-00 2019 Nov');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(713,replace('Number: 6\n5 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 31840412','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(714,'10.1111/jerd.12555');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(715,'OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the survival rate of ceramic and indirect composite inlays, onlays, and overlays manufactured according to different methods (CAD/CAM, pressable, and stratified). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for published articles. Risk of bias, data extraction, subgroup analysis, meta-analysis, and GRADE was performed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, retrospective, or RCT studies, without restriction of language, from 1983 to 2019, with follow-up ≥5 years, reporting survival rates were screened independently by two reviewers in accordance with eligibility criteria. RESULTS: A total of 13 articles (12 for ceramic, one for indirect composite) met the inclusion criteria. No articles were included regarding crystalline ceramic. The estimated cumulative survival rate for CAD/CAM was 97% after 5 years and 89% after 10 years; for pressable was 95% after 5 years, and for stratified was 88% after 5 years and 93% after 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the manufacturing method, vitreous ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays showed high survival, providing evidence that these restorations are a safe treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Vitreous ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays showed high survival, regardless of the manufacturing method, providing evidence that these restorations are a safe treatment.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(716,'Effects of manufacturing methods on the survival rate of ceramic and indirect composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(717,'Copyright © 2018 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(718,'44');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(719,'1339-1346');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(720,'Journal of endodontics');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(721,'1878-3554 0099-2399');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(722,'2018-09-00 2018 Sep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(723,replace('Number: 9\n11 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 30054099','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(724,'J Endod');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(725,'10.1016/j.joen.2018.05.017');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(726,'INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative pain after single-visit and 2-visit non-surgical endodontic retreatments with 2 different intracanal medicaments. METHODS: A total of 150 patients with asymptomatic root canal-treated teeth in need of nonsurgical endodontic retreatment were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 50). Patients were selected randomly from among those without preoperative pain. Patients in group 1 (single visit) were treated in a single visit. Patients in group 2 and group 3 were treated in different visits with calcium hydroxide and chlorhexidine (CHX) as intracanal medicaments. The presence of postoperative pain was assessed 1, 2, 3, and 7 days and 1 month after treatment. All 2-visit treatments were completed 1 week after the initial visit. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis, and Pearson chi-square tests (α = 0.01, 0.05). RESULTS: Postoperative pain was significantly higher in the CHX group in comparison with the single-visit group (P ≤ .05) on the first day of assessment. On the second day, postoperative pain was significantly less in the single-visit group (P < .05) than in the other 2 groups. There were no significant differences among the groups on the third and seventh days of assessment. At the 1-month assessment, postoperative pain was significantly higher in both the calcium hydroxide group (P < .05) and the CHX group (P < .05) in comparison with the single-visit group. CONCLUSIONS: Single-visit nonsurgical endodontic retreatment presented fewer incidences of postoperative pain in comparison with 2-visit nonsurgical endodontic retreatment based on assessments ranging from 1 day to 1 month.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(727,'Postoperative Pain Intensity after Single- versus Two-visit Nonsurgical Endodontic Retreatment: A Randomized Clinical Trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(728,'Copyright © 2016 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(729,'133-143');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(730,replace('Number: 2\n83 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 28007396','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(731,'10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.015');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(732,'OBJECTIVE: An ideal dental adhesive should provide retentive strength, marginal seal, be relatively simple to achieve and demonstrate clinical durability. Future improvements in adhesive bonding to tooth structure require in vitro test methods that provide reliable data for materials development and/or evaluation of experimental variables. The objective of this project was to identify a test method that is relatively easy to perform, repeatable and ultimately useful for predicting clinical outcomes. METHODS: The Academy of Dental Materials initiated a project to develop and distribute guidance documents on laboratory test methods that are useful for the evaluation of dental adhesives and cements, composite resins and ceramics. RESULTS: The dental adhesive sub-group has identified the micro-tensile bond strength test, especially after subjecting the specimens to a durability challenge, as currently the best practical surrogate measure of dental composite restoration retention. CONCLUSION: The following μTBS guidance is meant to aid the researcher in conducting the μTBS test. The authors, while recognizing the limitations of a static, strength-based test method, welcome comments and suggestions for improvements of this guidance document in future revisions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(733,'Academy of Dental Materials guidance on in vitro testing of dental composite bonding effectiveness to dentin/enamel using micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS) approach.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(734,'536-545');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(735,'Odontology');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(736,'1618-1255 1618-1247');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(737,'2019-10-00 2019 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(738,replace('Number: 4\n7 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 30969392','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(739,'10.1007/s10266-019-00426-6');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(740,'This study aimed to investigate the effects of several clinical factors on the success and survival rates of multiple-visit non-surgical root canal (NSRC) retreatment. Failed endodontically treated 236 teeth in 161 patients (18-72 years, 48% males; and 52% females) were retreated between March 2014 and December 2015 and were enrolled in this study. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative outcomes using the periapical index (PAI) scores. The teeth were classified as healed (healthy apical tissues, PAI ≤ 2, no signs or symptoms), healing (no signs and symptoms, PAI > 2 but reduced from the initial PAI score), and not-healed (presence of apical periodontitis, signs and/or symptoms, PAI > 2). The teeth scored as healed and healing was considered to be successful, while the not-healed ones were considered as failures. Of the 236 teeth, 135 (57.3%) in 103 patients (63.9%) were lost to follow-up, yielding to follow-up of 101 teeth (42.7%) in 58 patients (36%). Three teeth were extracted yielding to an overall success rate of 85.1%, at a mean observation time of 33.8 months. The teeth with periapical lesions < 5 mm had an 88.6% success rate, while those ≥ 5 mm had an 80% success rate (P > 0.05). While, age, gender, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors did not significantly affect the outcomes (P > 0.05), tooth type significantly affected the success rate (P < 0.05). The most frequently failed teeth were the mandibular first molars (P < 0.05). Based on these results, the multiple-visit NSRC retreatment exhibited a favorable success rate and could be offered for the endodontically failed teeth.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(741,'Clinical outcomes of non-surgical multiple-visit root canal retreatment: a retrospective cohort study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(742,'Journal of clinical medicine');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(743,'2077-0383');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(744,'2020-07-04 2020 Jul 4');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(745,replace('Number: 7\n1 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPMID: 32635470 \nPMCID: PMC7408958','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(746,'J Clin Med');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(747,'10.3390/jcm9072107');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(748,'The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the clinical performance of tooth-borne partial and full-coverage fixed dental prosthesis fabricated using hybrid polymer and ceramic CAD/CAM materials regarding their biologic, technical and esthetical outcomes. PICOS search strategy was applied using MEDLINE and were searched for RCTs and case control studies by two reviewers using MeSH Terms. Bias risk was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle-Ottawa assessment scale. A meta-analysis was conducted to calculate the mean long-term survival difference of both materials at two different periods (≤24, ≥36 months(m)). Mean differences in biologic, technical and esthetical complications of partial vs. full crown reconstructions were analyzed using software package R (p < 0.05). 28 studies included in the systematic review and 25 studies in the meta-analysis. The overall survival rate was 99% (0.95-1.00, ≤24 m) and dropped to 95% (0.87-0.98, ≥36 m), while the overall success ratio was 88% (0.54-0.98; ≤24 m) vs. 77% (0.62-0.88; ≥36 m). No significance, neither for the follow-up time points, nor for biologic, technical and esthetical (88% vs. 77%; 90% vs. 74%; 96% vs. 95%) outcomes was overserved. A significance was found for the technical/clinical performance between full 93% (0.88-0.96) and partial 64% (0.34-0.86) crowns. The biologic success rate of partial crowns with 69% (0.42-0.87) was lower, but not significant compared to 91% (0.79-0.97) of full crowns. The esthetical success rate of partial crowns with 90% (0.65-0.98) was lower, but not significant compared to 99% (0.92-1.00) of full crowns.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(749,'Clinical Performance of Partial and Full-Coverage Fixed Dental Restorations Fabricated from Hybrid Polymer and Ceramic CAD/CAM Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(750,'533-541');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(751,replace('Number: 6\n3 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 31268244','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(752,'10.1111/jerd.12512');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(753,'OBJECTIVE: The unavoidable extraction of teeth in the esthetic area can be overcome through different treatment modalities. Recently, immediate implants appeared as a minimally invasive approach to resolving these cases; however, immediate implant loading is not always possible or indicated. In these cases, an innovative approach through customized healing abutments could be used to preserve the soft tissue contour, eliminating the need for reopening surgery and the use of provisional restorations to condition the mucosal contour. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The present cases describe a simplified chairside approach to use customized healing abutments for immediate implants placed after tooth extraction in the anterior and posterior areas in order to maintain the soft tissue contours while reducing the clinical steps until delivering the final restorations. CONCLUSIONS: This technique seems to be effective to guide the soft tissue healing around dental implants allowing a natural emergence profile with implant-supported restorations, reducing the number of treatment steps. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of customized healing abutments prepares soft tissue for the prosthetic stage preserving its contours and eliminating the need for reopening surgery.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(754,'Peri-implant tissue management after immediate implant placement using a customized healing abutment.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(755,'2777-2784');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(756,'Clinical oral investigations');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(757,'1436-3771 1432-6981');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(758,'2019-06-00 2019 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(759,replace('Number: 6\n6 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 30368664','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(760,'Clin Oral Investig');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(761,'10.1007/s00784-018-2717-2');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(762,'OBJECTIVES: Indirect CAD/CAM restorations can be fabricated using both subtractive and additive CAD/CAM technology. This study investigated the fracture load of crowns fabricated from three particle-filled composite CAD/CAM materials and one 3D-printed composite material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Lava Ultimate, Cerasmart and Brilliant Crios were used as particle-filled composite CAD/CAM material and els-3D Harz as 3D-printed composite material. For each group, crowns with three different material thicknesses (0.5/1.0/1.5 mm) were fabricated. Control group was composed of ceramic-based CAD/CAM materials e.max CAD and Enamic. Totally, n = 180 crowns were fabricated and adhesively seated on SLA fabricated dies. Thermomechanical loading and fracture testing were performed. The data for fracture loading force were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed with multiple comparisons by post hoc Tukey''s test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: In contrast to ceramics, all particle-filled composite crowns with 0.5-mm thickness survived fatigue testing. Forces varied statistically significantly. Brilliant Crios showed highest maximum loading force with 1580.4 ± 521.0 N (1.5 mm). Two-way ANOVA indicated that both the material and the thickness affected the fracture load (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Particle-filled composite resin CAD/CAM materials may have advantageous material characteristics compared to ceramic CAD/CAM materials for minimal restoration thicknesses. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Composite-based CAD/CAM materials may offer new possibilities in minimally invasive restorative treatment concepts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(763,'Fracture load of CAD/CAM-fabricated and 3D-printed composite crowns as a function of material thickness.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(764,'Copyright © 2019 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(765,'1042-1052');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(766,'2019-07-00 2019 Jul');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(767,replace('Number: 7\n14 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 31084936','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(768,'10.1016/j.dental.2019.04.008');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(769,'OBJECTIVE: In this prospective clinical trial the survival, success rate and patient satisfaction of ceramic laminate veneers with special interest on existing restorations, immediate dentin sealing and endodontically treated teeth was evaluated. METHODS: A total of 104 patients (mean age: 42.1 years old) received 384 feldspathic ceramic laminate veneers on maxillary anterior teeth. Veneer preparations with incisal overlap were performed using a mock up technique. Existing resin composite restorations of acceptable quality were not removed but conditioned using silica coating and silanization. Immediate dentin sealing (IDS) was applied when more than 50% of dentin was exposed during preparation. Endodontically treated teeth were not excluded. After adhesive cementation, restorations were evaluated by calibrated evaluators at baseline and final follow-up using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: 225 Laminate veneers were bonded onto teeth without existing restorations, 159 on teeth with pre-existing resin composite restorations, 87 to teeth with more than 50% of exposed dentin surface and 43 to endodontically-treated teeth. In total, 19 failures were observed in form of debonding (n = 3), fracture (n = 15) and extraction due to endodontic complications (n = 1). In teeth with more than 50% of dentin exposure, a significant increase in survival rate was observed when IDS was used (96.4% versus 81.8%). No significant difference was found between teeth with and without pre-existing composite resin restorations (84.6% versus 95.5%) or between vital and non-vital teeth (95.6% versus 88.1%). Laminate veneers luted to endontically-treated teeth had a significant mis-match in color compared to vital teeth. Patients who smoked presented with significantly more marginal discoloration, but no intervention was needed. Patients scored favorably values on the Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire and were generally satisfied with the treatment. In this clinical trial, the ceramic laminate veneers had a relatively high survival rate. SIGNIFICANCE: Teeth with more than 50% of dentin exposure significantly benefit from IDS. Pre-existing restorations or endodontic treatments do not have an effect on the survival rate of ceramic laminate veneers. However, smoking habits and previous endodontic treatments negatively affect the success rate due to color changes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03645551.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(770,'Performance of ceramic laminate veneers with immediate dentine sealing: An 11 year prospective clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(771,'108');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(772,'331-338');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(773,'2020-07-00 2020 Jul');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(774,replace('Number: 3\n14 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 31264008','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(775,'10.1007/s10266-019-00441-7');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(776,'Polymer additive manufacturing (AM) technologies have been incorporated in digital workflows within implant dentistry. This article reviews the main polymer AM technologies in implant dentistry, as well as their applications in the field such as manufacturing surgical guides, custom trays, working implant casts, and provisional restorations.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(777,'An update on applications of 3D printing technologies used for processing polymers used in implant dentistry.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(778,'7-26');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(779,replace('Number: 1\n222 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 25646166','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(780,'10.3290/j.jad.a33525');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(781,'PURPOSE: Currently, no consensus exists regarding the best adhesion protocol for zirconia used in dentistry; this is important particularly for restorations where mechanical retention is deficient. This systematic review analyzed the adhesion potential of resin-based and glass-ionomer luting cements to zirconia and aimed to highlight the possible dominant factors affecting the bond strength results to this substrate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Original scientific papers on adhesion to zirconia published in the MEDLINE (PubMed) database between 01/01/1995 and 01/06/2011 were included in this systematic review. The following MeSH terms, search terms, and their combinations were used: "Dental bonding", "Zirconium", "Zirconia", "Y-TZP", "Y-TZP ceramic", "Materials Testing/methods", "Test", "Cement", and "Resin bonding". Two reviewers performed screening and data abstraction. Descriptive statistics were performed and the frequencies of the studied parameters, means, standard deviations, confidence intervals (95% CI; uncorrected and corrected), median values, and interquartile ranges (IQR) were calculated for the bond strength data reported for different factor levels: surface conditioning methods (control, physicochemical, physical, chemical), cements (bis-GMA-, MDP-, and 4-META-based resin cements, self-adhesive cements, glass ionomer), aging with and without thermocycling (TC), and test methods (macroshear, microshear, macrotensile, and microtensile). RESULTS: The final search provided 177 titles with abstracts. Further abstract screening yielded 72 articles, out of which 54 were found potentially appropriate to be included. After full text evaluation, 2 of these were eliminated. The selection process resulted in the final sample of 52 studies. In total, 169 different surface conditioning methods, mainly combinations of air-abrasion protocols and adhesive promoters (primers or silanes), were investigated. Altogether, the use of 5 types of cements and 4 testing methods was reported. While 26 studies were performed without TC as aging, 26 of them employed thermocycling at varying number of cycles. This review highlighted that adhesion of the luting cements is significantly influenced by the surface conditioning method (p = 0.044), cement type (p = 0.018), test method (p = 0.017) and aging condition (p = 0.003). In nonconditioned control groups without thermocycling, mean bond strength values ranged between 1.15 (IQR = 3.54) and 8.93 (IQR = 9), and 6.9 (IQR = 0) and 8.73 (IQR = 13.93) MPa for macroshear and macrotensile tests, respectively. After physical conditioning method, MDP monomer based cement presented the highest bond values compared to those of other resin cements using either the macrotensile (no TC: 34.2; IQR = 24.18 MPa, TC: 42.35; IQR = 0 MPa) or microtensile (no TC: 37.2; IQR = 41.5 MPa, TC: 17.1; IQR = 31.15 MPa) test method. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this systematic review, increased adhesion could be expected after physicochemical conditioning of zirconia. MDP-based resin cements tend to present higher results than those of other cements types when tested using macro- and microtensile tests. Adhesion studies on zirconia and reporting of data require more standardization.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(782,'Adhesion to zirconia used for dental restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(783,'29');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(784,'368-377');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(785,'Toxicology mechanisms and methods');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(786,'1537-6524 1537-6516');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(787,replace('Number: 5\n11 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 30642212','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(788,'Toxicol Mech Methods');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(789,'10.1080/15376516.2019.1566424');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(790,'OBJECTIVES: A wide range of compounds are utilized in dentistry such as dental composites, resins, and implants. The successful clinical use of dental materials relies on theirm physiochemical properties as well as biological and toxicological reliability. Different local and systemic toxicities of dental materials have been reported. Placement of these materials in oral cavity for a long time period might yield unwanted reactions. An extensive variety of materials is used in dentistry including filling materials, restorative materials, intracanal medicines, prosthetic materials, different types of implants, liners, and irrigants. The increasing rate in development of the novel materials with applications in the dental field has led to an increased consciousness of the biological risks and tempting restrictions of these materials. The biocompatibility of a biomaterial used for the replacement or filling of biological tissue such as teeth always had a high concern within the health care disciplines for patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Any material used in humans should be tested before clinical application. There are many tests evaluating biocompatibility of these materials at the point of in vitro, in vivo, and clinical investigations. RESULTS: The current review discusses the potential toxicity of dental material and screening of their biocompatibility. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is essential to use healthy and safe materials medical approaches. In dentistry, application of different materials in long-term oral usage demands low or nontoxic agents gains importance for both patients and the staff. Furthermore, screening tests should evaluate any potential toxicity before clinical application.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(791,'A review on potential toxicity of dental material and screening their biocompatibility.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(792,'© 2018 by the American College of Prosthodontists.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(793,'146-158');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(794,'2019-02-00 2019 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(795,replace('Number: 2\n70 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 29682823','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(796,'10.1111/jopr.12801');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(797,'There are 7 categories of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, and a wide variety of materials can be used to build a CAD 3D object. The present article reviews the main AM processes for polymers for dental applications: stereolithography (SLA), digital light processing (DLP), material jetting (MJ), and material extrusion (ME). The manufacturing process, accuracy, and precision of these methods will be reviewed, as well as their prosthodontic applications.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(798,'Additive Manufacturing Technologies Used for Processing Polymers: Current Status and Potential Application in Prosthetic Dentistry.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(799,'39');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(800,'1-8');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(801,'1881-1361 0287-4547');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(802,'2020-01-31 2020 Jan 31');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(803,replace('Number: 1\n12 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 31406098','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(804,'10.4012/dmj.2019-098');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(805,'The use of monolithic [yttria (Y(2)O(3))-stabilized tetragonal zirconia (ZrO(2)) polycrystalline] (Y-TZP) ceramics to restore teeth is expanding in dentistry. However, there are still some problems about color matching and the translucency of these ceramics. The employment of Y-TZP ceramics in aesthetically critical regions is questionable due to the insufficient translucency and opacity of the restorations. The objective of this review was to assess the factors affecting the translucency of monolithic Y-TZP ceramics for a better understanding the relevant parameters in restorations. The translucency of polycrystalline ceramics is a complex phenomenon. Apprehending the translucency regarding ceramics requires their knowledge of physical, chemical and microstructural characteristics with the light interactions among them.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(806,'Factors affecting the translucency of monolithic zirconia ceramics: A review from materials science perspective.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(807,'606-609');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(808,'The International journal of prosthodontics');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(809,'0893-2174');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(810,'2006-12-00 2006 Nov-Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(811,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 17165301','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(812,'Int J Prosthodont');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(813,'This study aimed to evaluate the influence of cement thickness on the bond strength of a fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post system to the root dentin. Eighteen single-rooted human teeth were decoronated (length: 16 mm), the canals were prepared, and the specimens were randomly allocated to 2 groups (n = 9): group 1 (low cement thickness), in which size 3 FRC posts were cemented using adhesive plus resin cement; and group 2 (high cement thickness), in which size 1 FRC posts were cemented as in group 1. Specimens were sectioned, producing 5 samples (thickness: 1.5 mm). For cement thickness evaluation, photographs of the samples were taken using an optical microscope, and the images were analyzed. Each sample was tested in push-out, and data were statistically analyzed. Bond strengths of groups 1 and 2 did not show significant differences (P = .558), but the cement thicknesses for these groups were significantly different (P < .0001). The increase in cement thickness did not significantly affect the bond strength (r2 = 0.1389, P= .936). Increased cement thickness surrounding the FRC post did not impair the bond strength.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(814,'Does the thickness of the resin cement affect the bond strength of a fiber post to the root dentin?');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(815,'70-72');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(816,'2007-02-00 2007 Jan-Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(817,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 17319367','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(818,'PURPOSE: This study compared the microtensile bond strength of resin-based cement (Panavia F) to silica-coated, silanized, glass-infiltrated high-alumina zirconia (In-Ceram Zirconia) ceramic in dry conditions and after various aging regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The specimens were placed in 1 of 4 groups: group 1: dry conditions (immediate testing without aging); group 2: water storage at 37 degrees C for 150 days; group 3: 150 days of water storage followed by thermocycling (x 12,000, 5 degrees C to 55 degres C); group 4: water storage for 300 days; group 5: water storage for 300 days followed by thermocycling. RESULTS: Group 1 showed a significantly higher microtensile bond strength value (26.2 + 1 MPa) than the other aging regimens (6.5 +/-1, 6.2 +/-2, 4.5+/-1, 4.3+/-1 MPa for groups 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively) (P < .01). CONCLUSION: Satisfactory results were seen in dry conditions, but water storage and thermocycling resulted in significantly weaker bonds between the resin cement and the zirconia.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(819,'Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to silica-coated and silanized In-Ceram Zirconia before and after aging.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(820,'341-345');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(821,'2012-04-00 2012 Mar-Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(822,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 22442773','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(823,'PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the level of microstrain that is exerted during polymerization of acrylic resins used for splinting during implant impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two acrylic resins (GC Pattern Resin, Duralay II) and square transfer coping splinting methods were evaluated by means of strain gauge analysis. Two implants were embedded in a polyurethane block, and the abutments were positioned. Sixty specimens were prepared using two square transfer copings that were rigidly connected to each other using the acrylic resins. The specimens were randomly divided into three groups of 20 each for the splinting methods: Method 1 was a one-piece method; in method 2, the splint was separated and reconnected after 17 minutes; and in method 3, the splint was separated and reconnected after 24 hours. In each group, half the specimens were splinted with GC Pattern Resin and the other half were splinted with Duralay II. Three microstrain measurements were performed by four strain gauges placed on the upper surface of the polyurethane blocks at 5 hours after resin polymerization for all groups. The data were analyzed statistically. RESULTS: Both resin type and splinting method significantly affected microstrain. Interaction terms were also significant. Method 1 in combination with Duralay II produced significantly higher microstrain (1,962.1 με) than the other methods with this material (method 2: 241.1 με; method 3: 181.5 με). No significant difference was found between splinting methods in combination with GC Pattern Resin (method 1: 173.8 με; method 2: 112.6 με; method 3: 105.4 με). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the high microstrain generated, Duralay II should not be used for one-piece acrylic resin splinting, and separation and reconnection are suggested. For GC Pattern Resin, variations in splinting methods did not significantly affect the microstrain created.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(824,'A strain gauge analysis of microstrain induced by various splinting methods and acrylic resin types for implant impressions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(825,'766-771');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(826,'Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(827,'0033-6572');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(828,'2003-12-00 2003 Nov-Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(829,replace('Number: 10\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 14620268','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(830,'Quintessence Int');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(831,'OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the resistance of various post and core materials against torsional forces on differently conditioned titanium posts. METHOD AND MATERIALS: One hundred fifty pure titanium posts (DIN 17850-Ti4/3.7065) were conditioned utilizing Silicoater Classical, Silicoater MD, Rocatec, Kevloc, and Siloc. Subsequently, three post and core materials (Adaptic, Coradent, Ti-Core) were applied to titanium posts that were previously coated with a light-cured opaquer (Dentacolor). Thirty sandblasted titanium posts were used as reference for each core material. Following thermocycling (5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, for 30 seconds or 5,000 cycles), maximum torsional forces were determined with an electronic torque movement key. RESULTS: Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U-tests indicated significant differences between Adaptic, Coradent, Ti-Core (20.9 dNm, 18.84 dNm, and 18.62 dNm, respectively). There were no significant differences between Silicoater Classical (18.56 dNm), Silicoater MD (18.18 dNm), and Rocatec (16.95 dNm), while Siloc exhibited the highest results (20.44 dNm). Kevloc demonstrated significantly lower results (10.43 dNm) than those of other systems and the control group (14.49 dNm). CONCLUSION: Resistance of core materials against torsional forces on titanium posts increased with the use of chemical surface conditioning techniques, while the system using only acrylization did not improve the resistance in comparison to the unconditioned posts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(832,'Effect of surface conditioning techniques on the resistance of resin composite core materials on titanium posts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(833,'29-32');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(834,'2010-02-00 2010 Jan-Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(835,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 20234888','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(836,'This study assessed alterations on bovine enamel after excessive bleaching. Coronal portions of bovine teeth (n = 30) were sectioned and divided into three groups (n = 10 per group). The coronal parts were further cut incisocervically into two halves. While one half received no bleaching (control), the other half was subjected to either one (group 1), three (group 2), or five bleaching sessions (group 3) with 35% hydrogen peroxide. The enamel surfaces were then analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Excessive bleaching affected the surface morphology and chemistry of the bovine enamel. EDS analysis showed the highest decrease in calcium ion percentages in groups 2 and 3 when compared to their nonbleached halves. Oxygen and phosphorus percentages were comparable on both the control and bleached enamel, regardless of the number of bleaching sessions. Consecutive bleaching sessions with 35% hydrogen peroxide may lead to morphologic and specific elemental changes when performed in a short period of time. Calcium ion percentages may decrease when this bleaching agent is used for more than one session. Int J Prosthodontics 2010;23:29-32.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(837,'Analysis of tooth enamel after excessive bleaching: a study using scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(838,'400-402');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(839,'2006-08-00 2006 Jul-Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(840,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 16900826','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(841,'This study compared the microtensile bond strength of a repair resin to an alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic (Vitadur-alpha, Vita) after 3 surface conditioning methods: Group 1, etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid for 1 minute plus rinsing and drying, followed by application of silane for 5 minutes; group 2, airborne particle abrasion with 110-mm aluminum oxide using a chairside air-abrasion device followed by silane application for 5 minutes; group 3, chairside tribochemical silica coating with 30-microm SiOx followed by silane application for 5 minutes (N = 30). Group 1 presented the highest mean bond strength (19.7 +/- 3.8 MPa), which was significantly higher than those of groups 2 (10 +/- 2.6 MPa) and 3 (10.4 +/- 4 MPa) (P < .01). Scanning electron microscope analysis of the failure modes demonstrated predominantly mixed types of failures, with adhesive and/or cohesive failures in all experimental groups.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(842,'Repair bond strength of a resin composite to alumina-reinforced feldspathic ceramic.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(843,'e64-70');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(844,'The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(845,'1945-3388 0198-7569');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(846,'2011-10-00 2011 Sep-Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(847,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 21845239','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(848,'Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(849,'This study investigated the effect of surface treatments on the retentive strength of zirconia posts and cores to root canals. Maxillary central incisors (n = 40) were treated endodontically, obturated, and post spaces were prepared. Zirconia posts and cores (n = 40) were obtained and assigned randomly to four groups (n = 10 per group; control, sandblasting, tribochemical silica coating, and tribochemical silica coating + silanization). Posts were cemented adhesively, and tensile force was applied. All treatment methods increased the tensile strength of zirconia posts and cores compared to the control group (P = .034). No significant difference was found between treatment methods. Failure types varied depending on the surface treatment method.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(850,'Effect of physical and physicochemical surface treatment methods on the tensile strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia posts and cores luted to root canals.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(851,'199-201');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(852,'2007-04-00 2007 Mar-Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(853,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 17455445','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(854,'This study aimed to evaluate the durability of adhesion between acrylic teeth and denture base acrylic resin. The base surfaces of 24 acrylic teeth were flatted and submitted to 4 surface treatment methods: SM1 (control): No SM; SM2: application of a methyl methacrylate-based bonding agent (Vitacol); SM3: air abrasion with 30-microm silicone oxide plus silane; SM4: SM3 plus SM2. A heat-polymerized acrylic resin was applied to the teeth. Thereafter, bar specimens were produced for the microtensile test at dry and thermocyled conditions (60 days water storage followed by 12,000 cycles). The results showed that bond strength was significantly affected by the SM (P < .0001) (SM4 = SM2 > SM3 > SM1) and storage regimens (P < .0001) (dry > thermocycled). The methyl methacrylate-based adhesive showed the highest bond strength.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(855,'Bond strength of acrylic teeth to denture base resin after various surface conditioning methods before and after thermocycling.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(856,'74-76');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(857,'2006-02-00 2006 Jan-Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(858,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 16479764','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(859,'PURPOSE: Fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) posts can be air-abraded to obtain good attachment to the resin cement. This study tested the effect of silica coating on the flexural strength of carbon, opaque, and translucent quartz FRC posts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six experimental groups of FRC posts (n=10 per group) were tested, either as received from the manufacturer or after chairside silica coating (30-microm CoJet-Sand). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the flexural strength of nonconditioned (504 to 525 MPa) and silica-coated (514 to 565 MPa) specimens (P > .05) (analysis of variance). The type of post did have a significant effect on flexural strength (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Chairside silica coating did not affect the flexural strength of both carbon and quartz FRC posts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(860,'Effect of silica coating on flexural strength of fiber posts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(861,'129-135');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(862,'Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(863,'0326-4815');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(864,'2010-00-00 2010');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(865,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: Argentina\nPMID: 21053686','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(866,'Acta Odontol Latinoam');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(867,'Polymerization of indirect resin composites (IRC) is carried out in the ''laboratories using special photo-polymerization devices to achieve a higher degree of conversion (DC). Such devices present variation in chambers and light output which may have consequences on the chemical and physical properties of IRCs. This study evaluated the effect of different polymerization devices on the flexural strength, Vickers microhardness and DC of an IRC. Specimens were prepared from an IRC material, Sinfony (3M ESPE), using special molds for flexural strength test (N=30) (25 x 2 x 2 mm, ISO 4049), Vickers microhardness test (N=30) (5 x 4 mm) and for DC (N=30) utilizing Micro-raman Spectroscopy. All specimens were submitted to initial polymerization with a Visio Alpha unit (3M ESPE) and then randomly divided into three groups (n=10/ group). Specimens in Group 1 (control) received additional polymerizations using a Visio Beta Vario device (3M ESPE), and those in Group 2 and Group 3 using Powerlux (EDG) and Strobolux (EDG) devices, respectively. DC and mechanical tests were then conducted. For the mechanical tests, the data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey''s tests (p < 0.05) and for DC, one-way ANOVA was used. Polymerization in Strobolux (Group 3) resulted in significantly lower flexural strength (MPa) values (134 +/- 27) compared to Visio Beta Vario (165 +/- 20) (Group 1) (p < 0.05). The lowest microhardness values (Kg/mm2) were obtained in Group 3 (30 +/- 1) (p < 0.05). DC was similar in all groups (75 +/- 1, 91 +/- 5, 85 +/- 7% for Visio Beta Vario, Powerlux and Strobolux, respectively) (p = 0.1205). The type of polymerization device may affect the flexural strength and Vickers hardness of the IRC tested. DC also seems to be affected by the type of polymerization device but the results were not significant.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(868,'Effect of different polymerization devices on the degree of conversion and the physical properties of an indirect resin composite.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(869,'228-232');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(870,'2008-06-00 2008 May-Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(871,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 18548961','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(872,'PURPOSE: This study compared the fracture strength of direct anterior cantilever fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) fixed partial dentures (FPD) reinforced with 3 types of E-glass fibers preimpregnated with either urethane tetramethacrylate, bisphenol glycidylmethacrylate/polymethyl methacrylate, or bisphenol glycidylmethacrylate monomers and 1 ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene fiber. Failure types were also evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 caries-free, human maxillary central incisors (n = 10 per group) received surface-retained direct cantilever restoration (1 pontic) after etching and application of bonding agent. Four FRC materials were used (FRC1 = EverStick; FRC2 = BR-100; FRC3 = Interling; FRC4 = Ribbond), and pontics were built up using 1 particulate filler composite (Clearfil Photo Posterior). After the fracture test, failure types were analyzed. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between the 4 FRC types veneered with particulate filler composite (893 +/- 459 N to 1326 +/- 391 N) (P = .1278). Complete pontic fracture at the connector area was most prominent for FRC4 (90%), followed by FRC3 (70%). Only FRC2 (10%) showed some fiber fractures, with half of the fiber remaining attached on the enamel surface of the abutment. CONCLUSION: The fracture strengths of cantilever FPDs made of 4 FRC materials with different monomer matrices and architectures, veneered with particulate filler composite, did not show significant differences. However, failure behavior varied between groups.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(873,'Fracture strength of fiber-reinforced surface-retained anterior cantilever restorations.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(874,'60');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(875,'e237-243');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(876,'General dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(877,'0363-6771');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(878,'2012-08-00 2012 Jul-Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(879,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 22782058','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(880,'Gen Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(881,'This study evaluated the radiopacity of different shades of resin-based restorative materials and compared the results to human and bovine dental hard tissues. Disk specimens 6 mm in diameter and 1 mm thick (N = 220, n = 10) were prepared from the following restorative materials: · eight shades of nanofilled composite (Aelite Aesthetic Enamel), · seven shades of nanohybrid composite (Grandio Universal), · six shades of photopolymerized polyacid modified compomer (Glasiosite), and · one shade of hybrid composite (X-tra fil U). Human canine dentin (n = 10), bovine enamel (n = 10), and an aluminum (Al) step wedge were used as references. The optical density values of each material were measured from radiographic images using a transmission densitometer. Al step wedge thickness and optical density values were plotted, and equivalent Al thickness (eq Al) values were determined for radiopacity measurements of each material. The data were analyzed using a non-parametric one-way ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis), and multiple comparisons were made with a Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc test (a = 0.05). Different shades of resin-based restorative materials tested did not reveal statistically significant differences within each material group (p > 0.05). Radiopacity values of the resin-based restorative materials investigated varied depending on their types; however, within different shades of one material type, radiopacity values were comparable. Every shade of nanocomposite material other than Aelite Aesthetic Enamel Incisal LT Gray showed comparable radiopacity to human dentin. Other materials tested demonstrated higher radiopacity compared to human dentin and bovine enamel.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(882,'Radiopacity of different shades of resin-based restorative materials compared to human and bovine teeth.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(883,'P128-134');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(884,'The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(885,'0965-7452');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(886,'2015-09-00 2015 Sep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(887,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: England\nPMID: 26591248','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(888,'Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(889,'This study evaluated the effect of binder choice in mixing ceramic powder on the chemical and morphological features between the margin ceramic-framework interfaces. Titanium and zirconia frameworks (15 x 5 x 0.5 mm3) were veneered with margin ceramics prepared with two different binders, namely a) water/conventional or b) wax-based. For each zirconia framework material, four different margin ceramics were used: a- Creation Zi (Creation Willi Geller International); b- GC Initial Zr (GC America); Triceram (Dentaurum); and d- IPS emax (voclar Vivadent). For the titanium framework, three different margin ceramics were used: a- Creation Ti (Creation Willi Geller International); b- Triceram (Dentaurum); and c- VITA Titaniumkeramik (Vita Zahnfabrik). The chemical composition of the framework-margin ceramic interface was analyzed using Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy (EDS) and porosity level was quantified within the margin ceramic using an image program (ImageJ) from four random areas (100 x 100 pixels) on each SEM image. EDS analysis showed the presence of Carbon at the margin ceramic-framework interface in the groups where wax-based binder technique was used with the concentration being the highest for the IPS emax ZirCAD group. While IPS system (IPS ZirCAD and IPS Emax) presented higher porosity concentration using wax binder, in the other groups wax-based binder reduced the porosity of margin ceramic, except for Titanium - Triceram combination.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(890,'The Effect of Water or Wax-based Binders on the Chemical and Morphological Characteristics of the Margin Ceramic-Framework Interface.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(891,'e6-e12');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(892,'2012-02-00 2012 Jan-Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(893,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 22313994','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(894,'This study evaluated the bond strength of two resin cements (Panavia F and Super Bond) to titanium after various surface conditioning techniques. The cements were applied using polyethylene tubes. After thermocycling, the specimens were tested in a universal testing machine for shear bond strength. Panavia F demonstrated significantly higher bond strength values than Super Bond. Of the conditioning techniques, Al2O3+Silane+Sinfony and Silano Pen+AP demonstrated significantly lower bond strength values than Al2O3+Cesead II Opaque Primer and 110 µm SiOx+Silane. The combination of Panavia and 110 µm SiOx+Silane, Al2O3+AP, or Al2O3+Cesead II, and the combination of Super Bond and 110 µm SiOx+Silane or Al2O3+Cesead II, can be recommended for improving the bond strength of resin cement to titanium.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(895,'Bond strength of two resin cements to titanium after different surface conditioning methods.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(896,'99-104');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(897,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 18309618','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(898,'This study evaluated the effect of chairside and laboratory types of surface conditioning methods on the adhesion of dual-cure resin cement with MDP functional monomer to zirconia ceramic after thermocycling. Disk-shaped (diameter: 10 mm, thickness: 2 mm) Y-TZP ceramics (Lava, 3M ESPE) were used (N=40) and finished with wet 1200-grit silicon carbide abrasive paper. Specimens were randomly divided into four experimental groups according to the following surface conditioning methods (n=10 per group): Group 1--Chairside airborne particle abrasion with 50-microm Al2O2 + Alloy Primer (Kuraray); Group 2--Airborne particle abrasion with 50-microm Al2O3 + Cesead II Opaque Primer (Kuraray); Group 3--Airborne particle abrasion with 50-microm A12O3 + Silano-Pen + silane coupling agent (Bredent); Group 4--Laboratory tribochemical silica coating (110-microm Al2O3 + 110-microm SiOx) (Rocatec) + silane coupling agent (ESPE-Sil). Adhesive cement, Panavia F 2.0 (Kuraray), was bonded incrementally to the ceramic surfaces using polyethylene molds (diameter: 3.6 mm, height: 5 mm). All specimens were thermocycled (5 and 55 degrees C, 6,000 cycles) and subjected to shear bond strength test (1 mm/min). Data were statistically analyzed (one-way ANOVA, alpha=0.05), whereby no significant differences were found among the four groups (8.43+/-1.3, 8.98+/-3.6, 12.02+/-6.7, and 8.23+/-3.8 MPa) (p=0.1357). Therefore, the performance of chairside conditioning methods used for zirconia was on par with the laboratory alternative tested.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(899,'Effect of various surface conditioning methods on the adhesion of dual-cure resin cement with MDP functional monomer to zirconia after thermal aging.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(900,'381-390');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(901,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 19841765','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(902,'PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to compare the bond strength of a stainless steel orthodontic wire vs various fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) used as orthodontic retainers on enamel, analyze the failure types after debonding, and investigate the influence of different application procedures of stainless steel wires on bond strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Caries-free, intact human mandibular incisors (N = 80, n = 10 per group) were selected and randomly distributed into 8 groups. After etching with 37% H3PO4 for 30 s, rinsing and drying, bonding agent (Stick Resin) was applied and light polymerized. Then one of the following FRC materials was applied on the flowable composite (Stick Flow) using standard molds: group 1: Angelus Fibrex Ribbon; group 2: DentaPreg Splint; group 3: ever-Stick Ortho; group 4: Ribbond. In group 5, Quad Cat Wire was applied in the same manner as in FRC groups. In group 6, after applying bonding agent (Stick Resin), Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Stick Flow composite. In group 7, after bonding agent (Heliobond) was applied, Quad Cat Wire was placed directly on the tooth surface and covered with Tetric Flow composite. In group 8, after applying bonding agent (Heliobond) and polymerization, Tetric Flow composite was applied, not polymerized, and Quad Cat Wire was placed and covered with Tetric Flow again. Specimens were thermocycled for 6000 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C and loaded in a universal testing machine under shear stress (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min) until debonding occurred. The failure sites were examined under an optical light microscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Tukey-Kramer adjustment test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences were found between the groups (p = 0.0011) (ANOVA). Bond strength results did not significantly differ either between the FRC groups (groups 1 to 4) (6.1 +/- 2.5 to 8.4 +/- 3.7 MPa) (p > 0.05) or the wire groups (groups 5 to 8) (10.6 +/- 3.8 to 14 +/- 6.7 MPa) (p > 0.05). Failure types varied within the FRC groups, but mainly composite was found left adhered on the enamel surface at varying degrees. In the stainless steel wire groups, when the retainer was applied onto the bonding agent and then covered with flowable resin, partially attached composite on the enamel was often found after debonding. When the wires were embedded in the flowable composite, the Heliobond group (group 8) showed more adhesive failures between the enamel and the composite compared to group 5, where the bonding agent was Stick Resin. CONCLUSION: Regardless of their application mode, stainless steel orthodontic bonded retainers delivered higher bond strengths than those of fiber retainers. The differences were statistically significant compared to those of Angelus Fibrex Ribbon and DentaPreg Splint.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(903,'Adhesive properties of bonded orthodontic retainers to enamel: stainless steel wire vs fiber-reinforced composites.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(904,'299-302');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(905,'2002-06-00 2002 May-Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(906,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 12066495','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(907,'PURPOSE: A recently introduced technique, the Cojet system, using SiOx (Al2O3 coated with silisic acid), provides ultrafine mechanical retention by sandblasting, as well as a chemicophysical bond between the metal-ceramic and the composite resin. This study determined the reasons for and locations of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and evaluated the survival of the intraoral silica-coating system used for the repair of failed restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 153 patients possessing 289 fractured crowns were involved in this study; 255 of these fractures were on fixed partial dentures, whereas 34 were on single crowns. The mean observation period was 34.6 months. The materials used for the repair process were ESPE-Sil for silane; Visiogem, Sinfony, and Dentacolor as opaquers; and Pertac II Aplitip, Sinfony, and Charisma as repairing composite resins. RESULTS: The majority of the failures (65%) occurred in the anterior region. Sixty percent of the failures were observed at the labial, 27% at the buccal, 5% at the incisal, and 8% at the occlusal regions. The fractures were mainly in the maxilla (75%), predominantly at the labial surface. The overall cumulative survival rates of the repairs (89%) showed that the first failures happened mostly from 1 week to 3 months after the repair, without any difference between the composite resins. CONCLUSION: The original failures happened mainly during chewing function or because of accidents, iatrogenic factors, and surgical operations, whereas secondary failures after repair using intraoral silica coating and composite resin were due to trauma, chewing function, or lack of rubber dam application.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(908,'Clinical study on the reasons for and location of failures of metal-ceramic restorations and survival of repairs.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(909,'353-360');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(910,'2010-08-00 2010 Jul-Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(911,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 20617226','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(912,'PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival rate of three-unit surface-retained, resin-bonded, metal-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (RBFDP) using two adhesive cements and two surface conditioning methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2005 and 2009, a total of 58 patients (34 women, 24 men; mean age: 42.1 years) received 58 three-unit RBFDPs made of a nonprecious alloy (Wirocast Co-Cr). Restorations were cemented employing the following combinations: (1) alumina air abrasion-silane + Panavia F 2.0 (group A1), (2) tribochemical silica coating (CoJet)-silane + Panavia F 2.0 (group A2), (3) alumina air abrasion-silane + Super-Bond C and B (group B1), and (4) CoJet-silane + Super-Bond C and B (group B2). Teeth were conditioned using the adhesives of the cements accordingly. Adaptation, debonding, fracture, and crack and caries formation were considered for clinical evaluation. Data were collected at baseline, 6 months, and annually thereafter. Forty-eight RBFDPs were available for follow-up (mean: 20.3 months, minimum: 6 months, maximum: 42 months). RESULTS: The effect of cement type on the survival rate of RBFDPs was not significant (P > .05). The survival rate was also not significantly affected by the location (maxilla: 93.2%, mandible: 92.9%; P = .928). All experienced failures were observed within the first year after cementation. In total, four complete debondings were encountered (two in group A1, one in group A2, and one in group B1 at months 1, 3, 7, and 3, respectively). Group B2 did not result in any failures during the observation period. The failures were adhesive debondings between the metal surface and the cement. CONCLUSION: Early findings did not show significant differences between the cement and conditioning type combinations, with group B2 presenting no failures.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(913,'A preliminary report on short-term clinical outcomes of three-unit resin-bonded fixed prostheses using two adhesive cements and surface conditioning combinations.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(914,'e425-432');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(915,'1936-7163 0033-6572');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(916,'2007-08-00 2007 Jul-Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(917,replace('Number: 7\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 17694207','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(918,'OBJECTIVE: The aim of this investigation was to evaluate the cervical adaptation of metal crowns under several conditions, namely (1) variations in the cervical finish line of the preparation, (2) application of internal relief inside the crowns, and (3) cementation using different luting materials. METHOD AND MATERIALS: One hundred eighty stainless-steel master dies were prepared simulating full crown preparations: 60 in chamfer (CH), 60 in 135-degree shoulder (OB), and 60 in rounded shoulder (OR). The finish lines were machined at approximate dimensions of a molar tooth preparation (height: 5.5 mm; cervical diameter: 8 mm; occlusal diameter: 6.4 mm; taper degree: 6; and cervical finish line width: 0.8 mm). One hundred eighty corresponding copings with the same finish lines were fabricated. A 30-Microm internal relief was machined 0.5 mm above the cervical finish line in 90 of these copings. The fit of the die and the coping was measured from all specimens (L0) prior to cementation using an optical microscope. After manipulation of the 3 types of cements (zinc phosphate, glass-ionomer, and resin cement), the coping was luted on the corresponding standard master die under 5-kgf loading for 4 minutes. Vertical discrepancy was again measured (L1), and the difference between L1 and L0 indicated the cervical adaptation. RESULTS: Significant influence of the finish line, cement type, and internal relief was observed on the cervical adaptation (P <.001). The CH type of cervical finish line resulted in the best cervical adaptation of the metal crowns regardless of the cement type either with or without internal relief (36.6 +/- 3 to 100.8 +/- 4 Microm) (3-way analysis of variance and Tukey''s test, a = .05). The use of glass-ionomer cement resulted in the least cervical discrepancy (36.6 +/- 3 to 115 +/- 4 Microm) than those of other cements (45.2 +/- 4 to 130.3 +/- 2 Microm) in all conditions. CONCLUSION: The best cervical adaptation was achieved with the chamfer type of finish line. The internal relief improved the marginal adaptation significantly, and the glass-ionomer cement led to the best cervical adaptation, followed by zinc phosphate and resin cement.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(919,'The influence of cervical finish line, internal relief, and cement type on the cervical adaptation of metal crowns.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(920,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 19492708','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(921,'Peer review revisited--a note about publication-shopping scientists.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(922,'391-397');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(923,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 19841766','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(924,'PURPOSE: This study evaluated the fracture strength and failure types of indirect resin-based composite laminates bonded to teeth with aged Class III composite restorations that were conditioned according to various protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary central incisors (N = 60) with window-type preparations received laminates made of a highly-filled resin composite material (Estenia) (10 per group).On the mesial and distal side, Class III cavities (3 x 3 mm) were prepared using ultrasonic burs and filled with resin composite (Quadrant Anterior Shine). The unrestored teeth served as a control group (group 6). All restored teeth (n=50) were thermocycled (5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 6000X) and subjected to one of the conditioning protocols: (1) air-particle abrasion with alumina particles coated with silica (30-microm SiO2, CoJet)+silanization, (2) air-particle abrasion with alumina particles (50 microm, Al2O3)+silanization, (3) 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 90 s (Ultradent)+silanization and (4) protocol of Clearfil Repair Kit, (5) adhesive resin (Quadrant Unibond Sealer). A three-step bonding procedure and dual-polymerizing resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) were employed. The inner surfaces of the laminates were conditioned (CoJet-Sand, 30 mum SiO2) and silanized (ESPE-Sil). All specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for one month prior to the fracture test. RESULTS: A significant difference was observed in fracture strength values between the groups (ANOVA, p = 0.0261). The only significant difference was between group 2 (299 +/- 103 N) and group 3 (471 +/- 126 N) (p = 0.0239) (Tukey''s test, alpha = 0.05). The majority of failures were type C (35/60) (chipping of the laminate with enamel exposure), followed by type B (21/60) (cohesive failure within the composite laminate). CONCLUSION: The fracture strengths of the laminates tested did not show significant differences, whether they were bonded to existing, aged Class III composite restorations or to intact teeth. The failure types, however, varied between the groups. The lowest strengths were obtained from the air-particle abraded (50 microm, Al2O3) and silanized group.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(925,'Fracture strength of indirect resin composite laminates to teeth with existing restorations: an evaluation of conditioning protocols.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(926,'1448-1455');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(927,'2012-12-00 2012 Nov-Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(928,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 23189296','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(929,'PURPOSE: To evaluate the fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns cemented on titanium and zirconia implant abutments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Customized implant abutments for maxillary right central incisors made of titanium (Ti) and zirconia (Zr) (n=60, n=30 per group) were fabricated for an internal connection implant system. All-ceramic crowns were fabricated for their corresponding implant abutments using the following systems (n=10 per group): (1) monolithic computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) lithium disilicate (MLD); (2) pressed lithium disilicate (PLD); (3) yttrium stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (YTZP). The frameworks of both PLD and YTZP systems were manually veneered with a fluorapatite-based ceramic. The crowns were adhesively cemented to their implant abutments and loaded to fracture in a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/minute). Data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey''s test (α=0.05). RESULTS: Both the abutment material (P=.0001) and the ceramic crown system (P=.028) significantly affected the results. Interaction terms were not significant (P=.598). Ti-MLD (558.5±35 N) showed the highest mean fracture resistance among all abutment-crown combinations (340.3±62-495.9±53 N) (P<.05). Both MLD and veneered ceramic systems in combination with Ti abutments (558.5±35-495.9±53 N) presented significantly higher values than with Zr abutments (392.9±55-340.3±62 N) (P<.05). MLD crown system showed significantly higher mean fracture resistance compared to manually veneered ones on both Ti and Zr abutments (P<.05). While Ti-MLD and Ti-PLD abutment-crown combinations failed only in the crowns without abutment fractures, Zr-YTZP combination failed exclusively in the abutment without crown fracture. Zr-MLD and Zr-PLD failed predominantly in both the abutment and the crown. Ti-YTZP showed only implant neck distortion. CONCLUSIONS: The highest fracture resistance was obtained with titanium abutments restored with MLD crowns, but the failure type was more favorable with Ti-YTZP combination.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(930,'Fracture resistance of crowns cemented on titanium and zirconia implant abutments: a comparison of monolithic versus manually veneered all-ceramic systems.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(931,'298-313');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(932,'The European journal of esthetic dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Esthetic Dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(933,'1862-0612');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(934,'2011-00-00 2011 Autumn');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(935,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 21876866','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(936,'Eur J Esthet Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(937,'Bonded porcelain restorations are a predictable and durable treatment option with which not only esthetic appearance but also the strength and function of teeth can be re-established. One of the most important issues of today''s dentistry is the preservation of sound enamel. Following biomimetic principles, employing minimally invasive applications and adhesive technologies are of paramount importance for successful restorations. The mock-up technique is advised for delicate removal of the required space for thin porcelain veneers minimally. Besides minimally invasive preparation, long-term success is determined by the adhesive quality of the laminate veneers. This case presentation demonstrates restoration of anterior dentition where the wear of incisal edges posed a negative effect on the smile of the patient. Before bonded porcelain veneers were adhesively cemented, incisal lengthening with direct resin composite and gingival contouring was performed. By using the mock-up technique, minimal preparations were made with the outline ending in enamel only. For cementation of these restorations, step-by-step adhesive procedures are presented.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(938,'Esthetic rehabilitation of worn anterior teeth with thin porcelain laminate veneers.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(939,'235-242');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(940,'0882-2786');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(941,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 17465348','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(942,'PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were (1) to compare the stability, evaluated by means of resonance frequency analysis (RFA), of implants placed posterior mandibles augmented with autogenous bone harvested from the mandibular symphysis with that of implants placed in nongrafted edentulous posterior mandibles and (2) to compare peri-implant marginal bone height changes and implant failure for the 2 groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients with thin posterior mandibular ridges (buccolingual crestal width less than 4 mm) underwent labial onlay alveolar grafting with symphyseal bone blocks 4 months prior to placement of 17 implants. Seven nongrafted patients received 18 implants in the edentulous posterior mandible; these patients served as a control group. RFA was performed the day of implant placement (baseline), 1 month postplacement, 4 months postplacement (after prosthesis delivery), and 12 months postloading. Peri-implant bone height changes at a level of 0.01 mm were assessed using periapical radiographs at baseline, the 1-month follow-up, and the 4-month follow-up. Analysis of variance was used to evaluate statistical differences within the groups, and t test was used to make comparisons between groups. RESULTS: None of the patients presented postoperative complications or implant failure. Mean implant stability quotient (ISQ) was 63.0+/-6.0 to 70.2 +/-3.5 for the grafted group and 64.1+/-4.1 ISQ to 70.1+/-3.9 for the nongrafted group. No significant difference was found in mean ISQ between the grafted and nongrafted groups at baseline, the 1-month follow-up, 4 months postplacement, or 12 months postloading (P = .211, P = .873, P = .925, P = .735, respectively). Mean peri-implant bone loss was 0.16 +/- 0.04 mm mesially and 0.16 +/- 0.05 mm distally. CONCLUSION: RFA revealed no difference in implant stability between mandibular ridges augmented with autologous bone grafts at baseline or after loading.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(943,'Resonance frequency analysis assessment of implant stability in labial onlay grafted posterior mandibles: a pilot clinical study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(944,'242-259');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(945,'2010-00-00 2010 Autumn');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(946,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 20820455','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(947,'Of all developments in dental technology, fulfilling the esthetic and functional demands of the patient, especially regarding anterior reconstructions, is still a challenge for both dentists and dental technicians. This becomes more difficult for patients with a previous treatment history that is not ideal. This case presentation demonstrates reconstruction of an anterior zirconia resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDP) for the mandible with a combined approach utilizing veneers for harmonized space distribution on the abutment teeth and an implant-supported zirconia fixed dental prosthesis in the anterior segment of the maxilla. Adhesive cementation of the restorations is also presented in a step-by-step approach based on the current state of the art.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(948,'A multi-faceted treatment approach for anterior reconstructions using current ceramics, implants, and adhesive systems.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(949,'123');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(950,'540-546');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(951,'American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(952,'0889-5406');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(953,'2003-05-00 2003 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(954,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 12750673','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(955,'Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(956,'10.1067/mod.2003.S0889540602569110');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(957,'With the increase in adult orthodontic treatment comes the need to find a reliable method for bonding orthodontic brackets onto metal or ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures. In this study, shear bond strength and surface roughness tests were used to examine the effect of 4 different surface conditioning methods: fine diamond bur, sandblasting, 5% hydrofluoric acid, and silica coating for bonding metal brackets to ceramic surfaces of feldspathic porcelain. Sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid were further tested after silane application. A total of 120 ceramic disc samples were produced, and 50 were used for surface roughness measurements. The glazed ceramic surfaces were used as controls. Metal brackets were bonded to the ceramic substrates with a self-curing composite. The samples were stored in 0.9% NaCl solution for 24 hours and then thermocycled (5000 times, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 30 seconds). Shear bond tests were performed with a universal testing device, and the results were statistically analyzed. Chemical surface conditioning with either hydrofluoric acid (4.3 microm) or silicatization (4.4 microm) resulted in significantly lower surface roughness than mechanical conditioning (9.3 microm, diamond bur; 9.7 microm, sandblasting) (P <.001). The surface roughness values reflect the mean peak-and-valley distances. The bond strengths of the brackets bonded to the ceramic surfaces treated by hydrofluoric acid with and without silane (12.2 and 14.7 MPa, respectively), silicatization (14.9 MPa), and sandblasting with silane (15.8 MPa) were significantly higher (P <.001) than those treated by mechanical roughening with fine diamond burs (1.6 MPa) or sandblasting (2.8 MPa). The highest bond strength values were obtained with sandblasting and silicatization with silane or hydrofluoric acid without silane; these fulfilled the required threshold. The use of silane after hydrofluoric acid etching did not increase the bond strength. Diamond roughening and sandblasting showed the highest surface roughness; they can damage the ceramic surface. Acid etching gave acceptable results for clinical use, but the health risks should be considered. The silicatization technique has the potential to replace the other methods; yet cohesive failures were observed in the ceramic during removal of the brackets.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(958,'Influence of various surface-conditioning methods on the bond strength of metal brackets to ceramic surfaces.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(959,'175-181');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(960,'2006-06-00 2006 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(961,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 16830664','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(962,'PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to three high-strength core ceramics: high alumina-based (In-Ceram Alumina, Procera AllCeram) and zirconia-reinforced alumina-based (In-Ceram Zirconia) ceramics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten blocks (5 x 6 x 8 mm) of In-Ceram Alumina (AL), In-Ceram Zirconia (ZR), and Procera (PR) ceramics were fabricated according to each manufacturer''s instructions and duplicated in composite. The specimens were assigned to one of the two following treatment conditions: (1) airborne particle abrasion with 110-microm Al2O3 particles + silanization, (2) silica coating with 30 microm SiOx particles (CoJet, 3M ESPE) + silanization. Each ceramic block was duplicated in composite resin (W3D-Master, Wilcos, Petrópolis, RJ, Brazil) using a mold made out of silicon impression material. Composite resin layers were incrementally condensed into the mold to fill up the mold and each layer was light polymerized for 40 s. The composite blocks were bonded to the surface-conditioned ceramic blocks using a resin cement system (Panavia F, Kuraray, Okayama, Japan). One composite resin block was fabricated for each ceramic block. The ceramic-composite was stored at 37 degrees C in distilled water for 7 days prior to bond tests. The blocks were cut under water cooling to produce bar specimens (n = 30) with a bonding area of approximately 0.6 mm2. The bond strength tests were performed in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). Bond strength values were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey''s test (< or = 0.05). RESULTS: Silica coating with silanization increased the bond strength significantly for all three high-strength ceramics (18.5 to 31.2 MPa) compared to that of airborne particle abrasion with 110-microm Al2O3 (12.7-17.3 MPa) (ANOVA, p < 0.05). PR exhibited the lowest bond strengths after both Al2O3 and silica coating (12.7 and 18.5 MPa, respectively). CONCLUSION: Conditioning the high-strength ceramic surfaces with silica coating and silanization provided higher bond strengths of the resin cement than with airborne particle abrasion with 110-microm Al2O3 and silanization.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(963,'Bond strength of a resin cement to high-alumina and zirconia-reinforced ceramics: the effect of surface conditioning.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(964,'455-460');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(965,'2008-12-00 2008 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(966,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 19189676','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(967,'PURPOSE: To assess the effect of adhesive application and aging on the bond durability of resin cement to etched and silanized feldspathic ceramic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty blocks (6.4 x 6.4 x 4.8 mm) of feldspathic ceramic (Vita VM7) were produced. The ceramic surfaces were conditioned with 10% hydrofluoric acid gel for 60 s and silanized. They were then randomly divided into two groups. While half of the group received no adhesive, in the other half, a layer of adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus) was applied. Each ceramic block was then placed in its silicone mold with the treated surface exposed. The dual-cured resin cement (Variolink II) was injected into the mold over the treated surface and polymerized. Specimens were sectioned to achieve nontrimmed bar specimens (approximately 12 sticks/block) that were randomly divided into 2 groups: a) non-aged--microtensile bond test immediately after sectioning; b) aged-thermocycling (TC) 12,000 times, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, and water storage (50 days). The microtensile bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). The failure types were examined using an optical light microscope and SEM. Bond strength results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey''s test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: The adhesive application affected the bond strength results significantly (p = 0.0001) (without adhesive > with adhesive). While aging conditions did not reduce the bond strength in the groups that received no adhesive (20 +/- 5.3 MPa non-aged and 21.5 +/- 5.6 aged) (p = 0.1698), it significantly affected the bond strength results of the group with adhesive application (18 +/- 4.4 MPa to 14.4 +/- 4.7 MPa) (p < 0.001). All groups showed mainly mixed type of failures between the ceramic and the resin cement (81% to 100%). The group in which no adhesive was applied presented a higher incidence of cohesive failure of ceramic after aging (18%) than those of the other groups. CONCLUSION: The use of adhesive did not improve resin cement adhesion to the etched and silanized feldspathic ceramic after long-term thermocycling and water storage.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(968,'Does adhesive resin application contribute to resin bond durability on etched and silanized feldspathic ceramic?');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(969,'443-447');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(970,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 18297825','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(971,'PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of surface conditioning methods and thermocycling on the bond strength between a resin composite and an indirect composite system in order to test the repair bond strength. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm) of indirect resin composite (Sinfony) were fabricated according to the manufacturer''s instructions. The specimens were randomly assigned to one of the following two treatment conditions (9 blocks per treatment): (1) 10% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 90s (Dentsply) + silanization, (2) silica coating with 30-im SiOx particles (CoJet) + silanization. After surface conditioning, the bonding agent was applied (Adper Single Bond) and light polymerized. The composite resin (W3D Master) was condensed and polymerized incrementally to form a block. Following storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h, the indirect composite/resin blocks were sectioned in two axes (x and y) with a diamond disk under coolant irrigation to obtain nontrimmed specimens (sticks) with approximately 0.6 mm2 of bonding area. Twelve specimens were obtained per block (N=216, n=108 sticks). The specimens from each repaired block were again randomly divided into 2 groups and tested either after storage in water for 24 h or thermocycling (6000 cycles, 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C). The microtensile bond strength test was performed in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). The mean bond strengths of the specimens of each block were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Both surface conditioning (p = 0.0001) and storage conditions (p = 0.0001) had a significant effect on the results. After 24 h water storage, silica coating and silanization (method 2) showed significantly higher bond strength results (46.4 +/- 13.8 MPa) than that of hydrofluoric acid etching and silanization (method 1) (35.8 +/- 9.7 MPa) (p < 0.001). After thermocycling, no significant difference was found between the mean bond strengths obtained with method 1 (34.1 +/- 8.9 MPa) and method 2 (31.9 +/- 7.9 MPa) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Although after 24 h of testing, silica coating and silanization performed significantly better in resin-resin repair bond strength, both HF acid gel and silica coating followed by silanization revealed comparable bond strength results after thermocycling for 6000 times.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(972,'Bond strength durability of direct and indirect composite systems following surface conditioning for repair.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(973,'67-70');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(974,'2014-04-00 2014 Mar-Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(975,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 24598500','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(976,'This in vitro study evaluated the marginal gap, cement thickness, and microleakage of glass-ionomer cement (GIC) and phosphate monomer-containing resin cement (MDP-RC) under 2 zirconia crown systems (Cercon and DC-Zirkon). Forty human premolars were prepared for all-ceramic zirconia crowns with a 1 mm circumferential finish line and a 1.5 mm occlusal reduction. The crowns (n = 10 per group) from each zirconia system were randomly divided into 2 groups and cemented either with GIC (Vivaglass CEM) or MDP-RC (Panavia F 2.0) cement. The cemented crowns were thermocycled 5000 times (5°-55°C). The crowns were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye solution for 24 hours and sectioned buccolingually and mesiodistally. Specimens were examined under optical microscope (100X). Data were analyzed using Student t-test and chi-square tests (α = 0.05). Mean marginal gap values for Cercon (85 ± 11.4 μm) were significantly higher than for DC-Zircon (75.3 ± 13.2 μm) (P = 0.018). The mean cement thickness values of GIC (81.7 ± 13.9 μm) and MDP-RC (78.5 ± 12.5 μm) were not significantly different (P = 0.447). Microleakage scores did not demonstrate significant difference between GIC (P = 0.385) and MDP-RC (P = 0.631) under Cercon or DC-Zircon. Considering the cement thickness values and microleakage scores obtained, both zirconia crown systems could be cemented in combination with either GIC or MDP-RC.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(977,'Marginal gap, cement thickness, and microleakage of 2 zirconia crown systems luted with glass ionomer and MDP-based cements.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(978,'399-406');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(979,'2007-08-00 2007 Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(980,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 17847643','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(981,'PURPOSE: This study evaluated the effect of different physicochemical aging methods and surface conditioning techniques on the repair bond strength of composite. It was hypothesized that the aging conditions would decrease the repair bond strength and surface conditioning methods would perform similarly for the repair of resin composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Disk-shaped resin composite specimens (Clearfil Photo Bright, Kuraray) were randomly assigned to one of the three aging conditions (N=120, n = 12/per group): (1) immersion in deionized water (37 degrees C, 1 week), (2) immersion in citric acid (pH: 3.0, 1 week), (3) boiling in water (8 h), (4) thermocycling (5000 times, 5 degrees C to 55 degreesC), (5) immersion in water (37 degrees C, 2 months). After aging procedures, the specimens were subjected to one of the following surface conditioning methods: (1) chairside silica coating (30-microm SiOx) (CoJet, 3M ESPE) + silane (ESPE-Sil) (SC method), (2) silane (Clearfil SE Bond Primer and Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator) + bonding agent (Clearfil SE Bond) (SB method). The fresh and aged composite surfaces were also examined using SEM (n=6, 1/group). Resin composite (Quadrant Anterior Shine) was bonded to the conditioned substrates using polyethylene molds and then light polymerized. Shear force was applied to the adhesive interface in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). The failure types were categorized as: (A) cohesive in the substrate, (B) adhesive at the interface, or C) cohesive in the adherend. Bond strength values were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey''s test (alpha < 0.05). RESULTS: A significant influence of the conditioning method (p < 0.0001) and aging method was observed (p < 0.01) (two-way ANOVA, Tukey-Kramer). The SC method showed significantly higher bond values (7.8 +/- 1.2 to 11.6 +/- 5 MPa) than those of SB method (4.6 +/- 2.3 to 7.6 +/- 3.9 MPa) in all groups (p < 0.0001). While the SC method showed 96% cohesive (A type), the SB method demonstrated 92% adhesive failures (B type). SEM images showed distinct pattern of microcracks in the boiled specimens and filler dissolution with disorganized matrix resin in the other aged specimens. Aging the composite substrates through water storage for 2 months produced significantly lower bond strengths than those of water or acid storage for 1 week (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Chairside silica coating and silanization provided the highest bond strength values with almost exclusively cohesive failures on aged composites. Aging methods showed significant differences on the composite-composite repair strength.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(982,'Effect of physicochemical aging conditions on the composite-composite repair bond strength.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(983,'77');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(984,'b143');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(985,'Journal (Canadian Dental Association)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(986,'1488-2159 0709-8936');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(987,'2011-00-00 2011');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(988,replace('Place: Canada\nPMID: 22067068','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(989,'J Can Dent Assoc');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(990,'Full-coverage bonded porcelain restorations offer predictable treatment options in dentistry, but a certain amount of tooth material must be removed to allow space for the required thickness of the restorative material. Laminate veneers and inlays are considered minimally invasive, but they also require removal of sound enamel. Sometimes, it may be preferable to extend the veneer preparations beyond the contact points toward the palatal surface, to hide the margins of the restoration, which necessitates removal of additional tissue. Improvements in adhesive technologies mean that small indirect restorations may be applied with removal of only a superficial layer of enamel. This clinical report describes a situation in which application of porcelain laminates and sectional veneers was chosen as the therapy of choice. A step-by-step protocol is proposed for cementation of these delicate restorations, and finishing procedures are described.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(991,'Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior teeth with porcelain laminates and sectional veneers.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(992,'24');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(993,'41-51');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(994,'International journal of computerized dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(995,'1463-4201');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(996,'2021-02-26 2021 Feb 26');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(997,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: England\nPMID: 34006062','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(998,'Int J Comput Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(999,'AIM: To evaluate the fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated teeth with post and cores made of different CAD/CAM materials in comparison with cast post and cores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 maxillary central incisors were divided into four groups. Post and cores were fabricated using the following materials: fiber-reinforced composite, high-density polymer, polymer-infiltrated ceramic network, and nonprecious metal alloy as a control group. Specimens were covered with lithium disilicate crowns and subjected to thermomechanical cyclic loading followed by fracture resistance testing until failure. One-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were used to determine significant differences between the four groups. The significance level was set at 0.05. 3D finite element analysis was then performed, and results were analyzed based on the von Mises stress distribution criteria and the maximum principal stress for the possible failure areas. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found in the fracture resistance between the four groups. In terms of unrestorable failures, no significant differences were found among the tested groups. CONCLUSION: The tested post and cores have comparable fracture resistance to that of metallic cast post and cores in the anterior region. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Post and cores made of CAD/CAM materials offer an acceptable alternative for the restoration of anterior teeth.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1000,'Effect of material types on the fracture resistance of maxillary central incisors restored with CAD/CAM post and cores.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1001,'72-85');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1002,'The international journal of esthetic dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1003,'2198-591X');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1004,'2017-00-00 2017');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1005,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 28117856','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1006,'Int J Esthet Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1007,'OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the adhesion of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia after various surface conditioning methods in non-aged and aged conditions. METHODS: Zirconia (IPS e.max ZirCAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) and resin composite blocks were obtained and randomly divided into four groups according to one of the following surface conditioning methods: C: No surface treatment (Control); AS: Air abrasion (50 µm Al2O3) at low pressure (0.2 MPa) plus silane (Monobond Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent); MC: Methylene chloride for 60 min; CE: Chemical etching solution at 100°C for 60 min. Surface roughness (Ra) measurements were performed on the control and conditioned zirconia specimens using a profilometer. Each conditioned zirconia block was bonded to its corresponding resin composite block using self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem Aplicap, 3M ESPE) under a load of 300 g. Half of the groups were tested without aging; the other half were tested after x6000 thermocycling. Sticks were obtained from bonded specimens and subjected to microtensile bond strength (MTBS) testing in a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Failure types were classified after debonding. Data (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey''s tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The highest mean Ra value was obtained in Group CE (0.52 µm), and the lowest in Group C (0.25 µm). Significantly lower MTBS test results were obtained in Group C, both in non-aged (17.4 ± 1.1 MPa) and aged (5.11 ± 0.5 MPa) conditions than in the other groups (34.6 ± 1.5 to 51.2 ± 1.1  MPa; 28.0 ± 0.9 to 49.5 ± 1.0 MPa in non-aged and aged conditions, respectively) (P < 0.05). Group CE presented the highest MTBS test results in both non-aged and aged conditions (51.2 ± 1.1 MPa and 49.5 ± 1 MPa, respectively) (P < 0.05). Failure types were predominantly adhesive in all groups before and after aging. After aging, less adhesive and more mixed and cohesive failures in cement were observed in Groups AS and CE than in the other groups. CONCLUSION: Chemical etching of zirconia may have potential use as a substitute for air abrasion as a surface conditioning method for zirconia.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1008,'Effect of chemical etching solutions versus air abrasion on the adhesion of self-adhesive resin cement 
to IPS e.max ZirCAD with and 
without aging.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1009,'89-101');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1010,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: England\nPMID: 34006066','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1011,'AIM: This case report describes a digital workflow for prosthetically driven surgical planning, implant placement, and the fabrication of two screw-retained, complete-arch, implant-supported dentures in an edentulous patient. The purpose of this case report is to present and discuss the digital steps in the workflow, especially the scanning technique to obtain the centric relation, through a clinical case. The limitations of the workflow are also discussed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) was planned three-dimensionally, based on cone beam computed tomography, intraoral optical scanning, and digital bite registration. Using s-CAIS, four and six implants were placed in the edentulous mandible and maxilla, respectively. The final screw-retained complete-arch monolithic zirconia restorations were manufactured based on a digital workflow, using the pre-existing modified radiologic guide for the digital maxillomandibular record. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of digital processing methods allows for design, processing, and fabrication of implant-supported fixed complete dentures using a surgical, prosthetic, and technical workflow based on 3D restorative backward planning. A digital prosthetic setup and CAD/CAM can be used for the fabrication of intraoral try-ins that serve as a model for the final monolithic zirconia superstructure.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1012,'Digital workflow for implant-supported fixed complete dentures based on backwards planning in an edentulous patient.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1013,'213-223');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1014,'2011-03-00 2011 Mar');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1015,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 21465008','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1016,'OBJECTIVE: To investigate the persistence of staining after the use of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Twenty-four subjects (nine women and 15 men) who underwent periodontal therapy and were prescribed the use of 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse participated in this study. Color values of maxillary central incisors, canines, and first molars were recorded at baseline; 3 days; and 1, 2, and 3 weeks of twice-daily chlorhexidine gluconate use with a digital intraoral colorimeter according to the CIE L*a*b* coordinates. RESULTS: While color-change (Delta E) values showed significant differences (P=.020) at different time points (10.1, 8.9, 8.9, 9.4, after 3 days and 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively), the duration of chlorhexidine gluconate use did not significantly affect the results (P=.873) (two-way ANOVA, Tukey test). No significant difference was found among Delta L* (P=.070), Delta a* (P=.169), and Delta b* (P=.691) values at any time point (one-way ANOVA). Measurements of baseline to day 3 differences showed significantly higher Delta E values than those at other time points (P<.05), but this change remained nonsignificant after 1, 2, and 3 weeks of chlorhexidine gluconate use (P>.05) (Tukey test). The highest visible staining occurred on the first molars at all time points (83%, 79%, 79%, and 96% after 3 days and 1, 2, and 3 weeks, respectively) compared to the other teeth evaluated. CONCLUSION: The staining effect of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse on natural dentition should be expected to be the highest in the first few days of use.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1017,'Evaluation of chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse-induced staining using a digital colorimeter: an in vivo study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1018,'138-142');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1019,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 22414507','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1020,'Dental restorations made of zirconia are usually selectively adjusted chairside to eliminate occlusal or internal interferences that can impair the mechanical properties of ceramic framework material. Effects of polishing procedures on zirconia after chipping or simply glazing the monolithic zirconia restorations are not known. This study evaluated the effects of different surface treatment procedures--namely, glazing or grinding, finishing, and polishing regimens--on the flexural strength and fracture toughness of a zirconia core material. Forty zirconia specimens were prepared and divided into two main groups (n = 20) according to the type of surface treatment (glazed or ground, finished, and polished). Each group was further divided into two subgroups (n = 10) according to type of mechanical test (flexural strength and fracture toughness). The roughness measurements were performed before mechanical testing. Qualitative evaluation of representative specimens of each subgroup was performed using SEM. The surface roughness mean (μm; ± standard deviations) recorded for the glazed specimens (0.94 ± 0.2) was significantly lower than that of the finished and polished group (3.01 ± 0.1) (P < 0.05). The glazed zirconia showed significantly higher flexural strength (385.4 ± 45.4 MPa) and fracture toughness (6.07 ± 1 MPa.m½) values than the ground, finished, polished zirconia (302.4 ± 47.6 MPa and 2.14 ± 0.5 MPa.m½) (P = 0.002 and P < 0.001 for flexural strength and fracture toughness, respectively). A smooth topographic pattern after glazing could not be obtained after finishing and polishing. Grinding, finishing, and polishing markedly decreased the flexural strength and fracture toughness of zirconia compared to the glazed groups.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1021,'Impact of surface finishes on the flexural strength and fracture toughness of In-Ceram Zirconia.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1022,'68-75');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1023,'2012-02-03 2012 Feb 3');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1024,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 22277608','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1025,'This study evaluated the radiopacity of different resin-based luting materials and compared the results to human and bovine dental hard tissues. Disc specimens (N=130, n=10 per group) (diameter: 6 mm, thickness: 1 mm) were prepared from 10 resin-based and 3 conventional luting cements. Human canine dentin (n=10), bovine enamel (n=10), bovine dentin (n=10) and Aluminium (Al) step wedge were used as references. The optical density values of each material were measured from radiographic images using a transmission densitometer. Al step wedge thickness and optical density values were plotted and equivalent Al thickness values were determined for radiopacity measurements of each material. The radiopacity values of conventional cements and two resin luting materials (Rely X Unicem and Variolink II), were significantly higher than that of bovine enamel that could be preferred for restorations cemented on enamel. Since all examined resin-based luting materials showed radiopacity values equivalent to or greater than that of human and bovine dentin, they could be considered suitable for the restorations cemented on dentin.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1026,'Radiopacity of different resin-based and conventional luting cements compared to human and bovine teeth.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1027,'101-104');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1028,'The journal of contemporary dental practice');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1029,'1526-3711');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1030,'2021-01-01 2021 Jan 1');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1031,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: India\nPMID: 34002718','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1032,'J Contemp Dent Pract');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1033,'AIM: This clinical technique report aimed to describe a composite resin repair technique performed in an implant-supported prosthesis. BACKGROUND: Veneering ceramic fracture or chipping is one of the most frequent clinical failures in dentistry. Therefore, the use of less time- and cost-consuming ceramic repair techniques is helpful in clinical practice. TECHNIQUE: Briefly, to treat the ceramic surface, the glaze was removed at the margins of the fracture area, then, air-abrasion and acid-etching were performed. To promote chemical adhesion, a silane coupling agent and adhesive system were applied over the ceramic surface, and the composite resin was applied by incremental technique. Finally, the polish was performed. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the applied composite resin repair of feldspathic porcelain chipping in implant-supported prosthesis was a simple, easy, affordable, and minimally invasive treatment. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The causes of veneer materials failures in metal-ceramic crowns are considered a challenge for the dentist and a problem that displeases patients. Repairs are indicated to prevent cracks from spreading and to prevent the accumulation of biofilm on the damaged surface. Therefore, different repair protocols have been proposed to enhance the esthetic, functionality, and longevity of the implant-supported prosthesis. Additionally, the success of the clinical cases depends on the capability to identify ceramic failures and the ability to indicate/perform the correct repair protocol. Since the described repair technique of the fractured screw-retained implant-supported prosthesis was a simple, easy, affordable, and minimally invasive treatment, with excellent esthetic and masticatory results, it represents an interesting clinical option.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1034,'A Simple Technique to Repair Feldspathic Porcelain Chipping in Screw-retained Implant-supported Prosthesis: A Clinical Technique.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1035,'133-140');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1036,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: Argentina\nPMID: 22165310','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1037,'The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of glazing on biaxial flexural strength of different zirconia core materials. Disc-shaped zirconia (ZirkonZahn, Cercon, Ceramill) specimens (15 mm x 1.15+/-0.02 mm) were prepared according to manufacturers'' instructions. The specimens from each system were divided into 2 groups (N= 10): unglazed and glazed. Glaze liquid was applied on the entire surface of the specimens of the glazed group and fired according to manufacturers'' instructions. Flexural strength test was performed in a universal testing machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). Data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey''s test (p= 0.05). The mean flexural strength values for unglazed ZirkonZahn specimens (1388+132 MPa) were significantly higher than those of unglazed Cercon (1104+124 MPa) and unglazed Ceramill (1172+127 MPa) specimens. The mean flexural strength of glazed specimens did not show any statistically significant difference. Glazing decreased the flexural strength results significantly for all systems (p< 0.05). Glazing decreased the flexural strength values for ZirkonZahn, Cercon and Ceramill specimens. Unglazed ZirkonZahn specimens revealed significantly higher mean flexural strength values than that ofunglazed and glazed zirconia materials tested in this study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1038,'The effect of glazing on the biaxial flexural strength of different zirconia core materials.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1039,'403-409');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1040,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 22720293','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1041,'PURPOSE: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the clinical performance of zirconia-based posterior four-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after 4 years of clinical observation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2006 and 2010, 10 patients (5 women, 5 men; mean age: 52.8 years) received 17 posterior four-unit FDPs. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the FDPs independently 1 week (baseline), 6 months, and 1, 2, 3, and 4 years after placement using California Dental Association (CDA) criteria. Periodontal status was assessed on both the abutment and contralateral control teeth using Plaque Index, Gingival Index, probing attachment level, and Margin Index parameters. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Three restorations were lost because of fractures at their distal connectors after a mean clinical service of 25.3 months, and one abutment tooth was extracted because of vertical root fracture 23 months after cementation. Three FDPs presented chipping of a moderate size 1 week before framework fracture, and minor chipping was observed in 2 other FDPs 1 week and 36 months after cementation. After 4 years of clinical service, the cumulative survival rate of the posterior four-unit FDPs was 76.5%. No caries lesions were detected on the abutment teeth. The remaining restorations were judged to be satisfactory according to the CDA criteria. Periodontal parameters did not show significant differences between test and control teeth, but Gingival Index scores demonstrated a slight increase in inflammation in the distal abutments after 4 years (P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: The use of zirconia-based posterior four-unit FDPs should be restricted for patients with high esthetic demands, except in patients where at least 4 mm of height is available for connector thickness.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1042,'Prospective clinical study of zirconia-based posterior four-unit fixed dental prostheses: four-year follow-up.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1043,'333-337');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1044,'2012-00-00 2012');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1045,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 22673457','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1046,'This study compared the bond strength between metal alloys and 5 ceramic systems. Ceramic systems (Vita VMK68, Ivoclar IPSd. SIGN, Ceramco II, Matchmaker and Finesse) were fired onto either Ni-Cr or Co-Cr base metal alloy. Metal-ceramic interfaces were subjected to shear loading until failure. The ceramic type significantly affected the bond strength results (p<0.05). For Ni-Cr alloy, the results ranged between 15.4-25.3 MPa and for Co-Cr alloy between 13.3-19.0 MPa. The highest mean bond strength value was obtained with the combination of Ni-Cr alloy-Ceramco II (25.3 MPa), the lowest bond strength was received from the combination of Co-Cr alloy-Ivoclar IPS d.SIGN ceramic (13.3 MPa). Adhesive failures between metal and ceramic were significantly more frequent with Ni-Cr alloy (31 out of 50) than with Co-Cr (20 out of 50) (p<0.05). Ceramco II presented the highest bond strength with both Ni-Cr and Co-Cr being significantly different from one another.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1047,'Interfacial shear bond strength between different base metal alloys and five low fusing feldspathic ceramic systems.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1048,'55-61');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1049,'The Chinese journal of dental research : the official journal of the Scientific Section of the Chinese Stomatological Association (CSA)');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1050,'1462-6446');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1051,'2013-00-00 2013');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1052,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: England\nPMID: 23878827','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1053,'Chin J Dent Res');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1054,'OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relation between handling characteristics and application time of four composite materials with subjectively different viscosities. METHODS: Eight experienced faculty members placed one Class II and one Class IV restoration in a random sequence into pre-prepared plastic teeth mounted on a typodont model, each using 4 types of composites (Herculite Précis (M1), Kerr; Tertic N-Ceram (M2), Ivoclar Vivadent; Filtek Z350 (M3), 3M-ESPE; Charisma Opal (M4), HareausKulzer), resulting in a total of 64 restorations. The application process was filmed with a high definition video camera. Two evaluators watched the recordings in a random sequence as well, timed the composite application and wrote down their observations, which were dichotimised into positive and negative ones. Application times were analysed with a two-way Kruskal Wallis test (time x dentist) and the observation data were analysed with a chi-square test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Materials did not differ in their application time (P > 0.05). The mean application time was 12 ¼ minutes for the Class II and 9 ¾ minutes for Class IV restorations. However, there were statistically significant differences between the dentists in terms of application time. The observation data showed no significant difference between Class II and Class IV restorations but there were significant material differences (P < 0.05). M2 yielded 6% negative observations, while the other materials were between 35% and 38%. CONCLUSION: There was no association between the handling characteristics of the tested composite resins and the speed of application. However, one of the tested materials (M2) showed significantly less problems in the application process.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1055,'Relation between handling characteristics and application time of four photo-polymerized resin composites.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1056,'This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1057,'Australian dental journal');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1058,'1834-7819 0045-0421');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1059,'2021-07-28 2021 Jul 28');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1060,replace('Place: Australia\nPMID: 34319585','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1061,'Aust Dent J');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1062,'10.1111/adj.12869');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1063,'BACKGROUND: Wear and quality assessment of translucent monolithic zirconia and CAD-on(®) restorations were performed. METHODS: Forty 3-unit posterior FDP in 18 patients (age:18-50yrs) were made from translucent monolithic zirconia (tm) (Zenostar T) and zirconia-frameworked, lithium disilicate layered (c) (CAD-on), materials in a split-mouth design. Restorations were digitally fabricated and their internal and marginal adaptations were measured before cementation followed by luting (Multilink Speed). Clinical evaluations were made by modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 6,12 and 24-months. Wear of the restorations and the antagonists were digitally evaluated after optical scanning of stone casts at 1(st) week and 24m through a software (Cerec 4.4). Statistical analysis was made (ANOVA, Shapiro-Wilk, Friedman and Wilcoxon tests (SPSS 20)) at α=0,05 significance level. RESULTS: At 24 m, all restorations were clinically acceptable. Insignificant differences were found between tm and c restorations (P>.05). Mean internal and marginal adaptation of c restorations were significantly better (145µm (premolar)-174µm (molar)) than tm (190µm (premolar)-207µm (molar)) (P<.05). C restorations significantly caused more wear (0.3±0.1mm) than tm (0.1±0.07mm) on the antagonistic dentition (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Translucent monolithic zirconia restorations caused less wear and antagonist wear than CAD-on restorations. CAD-on restorations exhibited higher internal and marginal adaptation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1064,'Clinical wear and quality assessment of monolithic and lithium disilicate layered zirconia restorations.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1065,'275-282');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1066,'Oral health & preventive dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1067,'1602-1622');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1068,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 23094271','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1069,'Oral Health Prev Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1070,'PURPOSE: The objectives of this in-vitro study were to investigate the effect of theobromine, which is the principle xanthine species in Theobroma cacao, at two concentrations on the surface hardness and topography of human enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four freshly extracted human third molars were collected and stored in distilled water with 0.1% thymol solution at room temperature prior to the experiments. The enamel specimens were treated with one coat of theobromine at two concentrations (100 mg/l or 200 mg/l in distilled water) for 5 min. Enamel surfaces in the control group received no theobromine. They were then kept in distilled water for 1 week and subjected to SEM analysis. The specimens were demineralised by storing them in acidic hydroxyethylcellulose for three days. After baseline microhardness measurements, they were incubated either in 100 or 200 mg/l theobromine for 5 min. The control group was kept in distilled water. After washing the specimens under distilled water, they were kept in a remineralising solution for 18 h. Microhardness of the enamel surface was initially determined for each specimen before artificial demineralisation. After demineralisation, the experimental groups were incubated in 100 mg or 200 mg theobromine and control-group specimens were placed in remineralising solution. RESULTS: Enamel surfaces of the untreated control group presented a generally smooth and slightly hummocky surface with small lines of pits. Specimens treated with theobromine showed differences between the two concentrations. The group treated with 200 mg/l solution for 5 min showed a greater quantity of globules on enamel than did specimens treated with 100 mg/l solution. CONCLUSION: As shown by the microhardness values, a consistent and remarkable protection of the enamel surface was found with the application of theobromine.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1071,'Evaluation of human enamel surfaces treated with theobromine: a pilot study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1072,'184-196');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1073,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 29687097','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1074,'The digital workflow - from the intraoral scanning, through the CAD design of the facially generated diagnostic digital wax-up, to the CAD-designed and 3D-printed silicone index with the diagnostic mock-up - provides a new approach that avoids the conventional manufacturing of casts. The development of the process requires a synchronized workflow and good communication between the dental technician, prosthodontist, and patient. This report describes a protocol for the diagnostic digital sequence for the treatment planning of an esthetic rehabilitation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1075,'A report on a diagnostic digital workflow for esthetic dental rehabilitation using additive manufacturing technologies.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1076,'61');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1077,'e10-13');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1078,'2013-12-00 2013 Nov-Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1079,replace('Number: 7\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 24192740','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1080,'This study compared the bond strength and stability of 3 different luting systems to a zirconia ceramic crown. Sixty cylinders of zirconia ceramic were cemented to flat dentin surfaces of extracted human teeth, using 3 different luting agents (n = 20): a glass ionomer (GI) cement, a resin-modified glass-ionomer (RMGI) cement, and a resin cement containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP). The specimens from each cement group were then divided into 2 subgroups (n = 10). Three subgroups (1 from each cement) were selected to test shear bond strength (SBS) immediately before an aging process of thermocycling and water storage, the remaining 3 subgroups were tested for SBS after the aging process. The aging process affected the bond strength of the MDP and RMGI cements. The MDP cement demonstrated superior bond strength compared to the GI and RMGI cements; the GI cement consistently had the lowest bond strength. The RMGI cement had higher cohesive failures at cement (70%), while the GI and the MDP cements had higher percentages of adhesive failure at the ceramic-cement interface (70% and 100%, respectively). The MDP cement promoted better adhesion between dentin and the zirconia ceramic.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1081,'Bond strength and stability of 3 luting systems on a zirconia-dentin complex.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1082,'392-397');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1083,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 21597220','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1084,'This study evaluated the influence of heat treatment (HT) of the silane on the microtensile bond strength of resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic. Ceramic (VITA VM7) and composite blocks (N=32) were divided into four groups (n=6 for bond test, n=2 for SEM) at random and subject to following sequence of conditioning: G1: HF 9.6%+Silane+Panavia F2.0, G2: HF 9.6%+Silane+HT+Panavia F2.0, G3: Silane+HT+Panavia F2.0, and G4: Silane+Panavia F2.0. HT was performed in an oven (100°C, 2 minutes). G1 (17.6±2.3 MPa) and G2 (19±3.2 MPa) showed significantly higher mean bond strength than those of G3 (9.1±2.8 MPa) and G4 (10.9±1.8 MPa). SEM analysis showed exclusively mixed failures. Silane HT did not increase the bond strength.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1085,'Influence of silane heat treatment on bond strength of resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1086,'b86');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1087,replace('Place: Canada\nPMID: 21736862','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1088,'Currently, there are many options for single-tooth replacement: metal-ceramic, all-ceramic, direct or indirect fibre-reinforced composite fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) or implants. Inlay-retained FDPs may especially be indicated when adjacent teeth have been previously restored and when implant placement is not possible or not indicated. In such cases, both metal-ceramic and fibre-reinforced composite FDPs have certain disadvantages. In this paper, we describe the use of all-ceramic inlay-retained FDPs with zirconia frameworks, veneered using a press-on technique.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1089,'Inlay-retained zirconia fixed dental prostheses: modified designs for a completely adhesive approach.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1090,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: England\nPMID: 27424337','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1091,'This study evaluated the conditions of the non-invasive resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (FDP) and patient satisfaction up to 10 years of clinical function. A total of 23 patients who required fixed prostheses in the areas of mandibular anterior and premolar, and maxillary anterior region received resin-bonded restorations between 1999-2003. In 13 patients with 14 edentulous areas were restored with an adhesive pontic (natural tooth, acrylic and porcelain). Two indirect proximal veneers using resin composite were placed in each space in 10 patients having 13 edentulous spaces. All prostheses were bonded to the proximal surface of adjacent teeth using resin cement based on 4-META/MMA-TBB. No debonding of proximal veneers but 4 pontic debonding was observed which were rebonded and remained functional until final follow up. The abutments in pontic and proximal veneer groups were free of caries and hypersensitivity. Periodontal health was improved after treatment and was maintained for 10 years except for 4 abutments that still showed some bleeding on probing. Non-invasive resin-bonded FDPs are simple, pain-free, less costly treatment procedures that could provide acceptable clinical longevity with high patient satisfaction.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1092,'A 10-Year Clinical Evaluation of Resin-Bonded Fixed Dental Prostheses on Non-Prepared Teeth.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1093,'65');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1094,'e12-e17');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1095,'2017-08-00 2017 Jul-Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1096,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 28682289','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1097,'This randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the color change of teeth bleached with either hydrogen peroxide (HP) or ozone (OZ). A total of 26 patients with a mean age of 36.2 years (SD, 8.7 years) who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive chairside bleaching using 40% HP or gaseous OZ. Maxillary dental arch vacuum trays were constructed with circumferential openings in the middle portion of the maxillary incisors at their labial surfaces. These trays were used for measuring color-first at baseline and then immediately and 48 hours after postbleaching-and were not used in bleaching. Changes in color were determined using CIE L*a*b* coordinates. Analysis of the data revealed that, while overall color change (ΔE*) values of the HP and OZ groups did not show statistically significant differences immediately after bleaching (P = 0.114), ΔE* values were significantly different 48 hours postbleaching (P = 0.00). Visible color changes were not obtained with either HP or OZ immediately postbleaching. The greatest visible color change occurred with HP 48 hours postbleaching.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1098,'Color assessment after bleaching with hydrogen peroxide versus ozone: a randomized controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1099,'816-823');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1100,'2018-07-01 2018 Jul 1');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1101,replace('Number: 7\nPlace: India\nPMID: 30066685','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1102,'AIM: This study compared the bond strength of pre-sintered Ceramill Sintron to pre-sintered zirconia and cast nickel-chromium (NiCr). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens (n = 60) (diameter: 15 mm; thickness: 2 mm) were prepared (n = 20/group) (Ceramill Sintron, Ceramill Zi, and Wirobond 99). Disks were layered with vita VM ceramic (4 mm). Specimens were randomly divided into two subgroups. Only one subgroup was thermocycled. Specimens were tested under shear strength. Energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) mapping was done on one disk of each material before and after ceramic layering. RESULTS: Failure types were mostly mixed failures. Significant difference was found between the three materials for Y and Z failure types (p-values: 0.032 and 0.010 respectively). Thermocycling had no major effect on the results reported. Considering Fmax (force-inducing bonding failure) registered, significant difference was found between the control group and milled alloys groups. No significant difference was found between Ceramill Sintron and Zi. The EDX mapping showed a net increase in the control group oxide layer, whereas only slight increase and decrease were reported for Zi and Sintron respectively. CONCLUSION: When compared with cast NiCr, novel Ceramill Sintron has higher bond strength, comparable to Ceramill Zi. Thermocycling had no major effects on the results. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Ceramic-alloy bonding is a primary factor in the prosthesis'' longevity.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1103,'Comparison of Adhesion of a Novel Pre-sintered Cobalt-Chromium to Pre-sintered Zirconia and Cast Nickel-Chromium.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1104,'868-873');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1105,'2020-08-01 2020 Aug 1');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1106,replace('Number: 8\nPlace: India\nPMID: 33568607','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1107,'AIM: To compare fracture resistance between the cement-retained (CR), screw-retained (SR), and combined cement- and screw-retained (CCSR) metal-ceramic (MC) implant-supported molar restorations and the fracture mode after vertical loading simulation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty MC molar restorations were fabricated on thirty tilted dental implants that were repositioned using prefabricated or universal castable long abutments (UCLA) with 15° of angulation divided into three groups of ten specimens each. Group C: CR, group S: SR, and group CS: cement- and screw-retained. The crowns in group CS were adhesively bonded extraorally, and composite resin was used to fill the screw access holes (SAHs) in groups S and CS. Subsequently, all the specimens were tested for fracture resistance. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) evaluation of the fracture mode was also performed. Mean values of fracture loads were calculated and compared in Newtons (N) using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test (p < 0.05) for each group. RESULTS: Mean fracture load values were 2718.00 ± 266.25 N for group C, 2125.10 ± 293.82 N for group S, and 2508.00 ± 153.59 N for group CS. Significant differences were found between group S and the other groups on fracture load values. However, no significant differences were found between groups C and CS (p = 0.154). The failures were at MC framework interfaces on mesiolingual cusps. CONCLUSIONS: Cement and CCSR MC molar restorations showed comparable fracture resistance using abutments with 15° of angulation. However, SR design showed significantly the lowest values of resistance. Screw access hole did not significantly affect the fracture resistance of cemented MC molar restorations. All the specimens exhibited mixed adhesive fractures at the mesiolingual cusps. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Combined cement- and screw-retained restorations (CCSRRs) incorporate the simplicity of the cement method and the retrievability of the screw method, offering good resistance, allowing the removal of the excess of cement before clinical placement of the restoration, and providing another alternative for dental implant rehabilitation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1108,'Fracture Resistance of Cement-retained, Screw-retained, and Combined Cement- and Screw-retained Metal-ceramic Implant-supported Molar Restorations.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1109,'324-337');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1110,'2021-08-17 2021 Aug 17');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1111,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 34319667','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1112,'AIM: 3D face impression techniques have been defined to eliminate the disadvantages of conventional impression methods. The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of a digital technique using a novel 3D camera in relation to a conventional impression technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten prefabricated polystyrene head molds each containing 10 predetermined anatomical landmarks were used. The 3D data of each head mold included in the study were generated through the use of the Intel RealSense D415 camera. Ten stone casts of head molds were also fabricated using conventional silicone impressions through a putty-wash impression technique. The reliability of the 3D data (Group 1) was directly compared with that of the stone casts (Group 2) and prefabricated polystyrene head molds (Group 3) by measuring the distances between 10 anatomical landmarks, including 45 distance measurements. Differences and consistencies were determined using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: Significant consistencies were found among the groups in terms of the overall mean values of the 45 distance measurements (ICC = 0.978, P = 0.001). Paired comparisons indicated significant correlations between Groups 1 and 2 (ICC = 0.970, P = 0.001), Groups 1 and 3 (ICC = 0.967, P = 0.001), and Groups 2 and 3 (ICC = 0.998, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The distance measurement accuracy of the 3D camera was consistent with the reference values. Digital impressions obtained with 3D cameras can be an effective alternative to conventional impressions for craniofacial defects or deficiencies.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1113,'Evaluation of reliability of face scanning using a new depth camera.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1114,'829-834');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1115,replace('Number: 8\nPlace: India\nPMID: 33568600','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1116,'AIM: To compare the vertical marginal discrepancy of retrievable cement/screw-retained design (RCSRD) and cement-retained (CR) implant-supported single metal copings cemented on implant abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single metal copings were fabricated for 20 4.5 × 10 mm titanium dental implants. Two groups of 10 implants each were randomly allocated. One group received RCSRD metal copings and the other group received CR metal copings. Both types of restorations were fabricated on solid abutments with 5.5 mm of diameter. The copings were cemented with resin cement. After the cementation procedure, cement excess was carefully removed in both groups. Inspections of coping-abutment vertical marginal discrepancy were measured using scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) under 800× magnification. The independent sample Student''s t test was used to detect differences between groups (p < 0.05). RESULTS: The RCSRD implant-supported metal coping group (57.80 ± 2.34 μm) showed statistically better vertical marginal discrepancy than the CR implant-supported metal coping group (64.40 ± 2.23 μm) (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The RCSRD implant-supported metal copings offer less vertical marginal discrepancy than the CR copings group. This new technique would decrease the marginal discrepancy with less bacterial filtration and biomechanical problems. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Retrievable cement/screw-retained design is another alternative technique for dental implant rehabilitation that combines the advantages of CR and SR prostheses. The hybrid design offers less vertical marginal discrepancy for better control of bacterial filtration and biomechanical problems.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1117,'Vertical Marginal Discrepancy of Retrievable Cement/Screw-retained Design and Cement-retained Implant-supported Single Metal Copings.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1118,'185-190');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1119,'American journal of dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1120,'0894-8275');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1121,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 24693627','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1122,'Am J Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1123,'PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of artificial demineralization upon color change of dentin in contact with dental amalgam. METHODS: Sound human molars (n = 34) were embedded in resin and coronal enamel was removed. Dentin was exposed to artificial caries gel (pH 5.5) at 37 degrees C for 12 weeks (n = 24). Non-demineralized teeth served as controls (n = the 10). A dispersive high-Cu amalgam or conventional low-Cu amalgam was condensed onto dentin surfaces of all groups. After 10 weeks storage in saline, amalgam was removed and teeth were cut into three slices. Surfaces were inspected under optical microscopy and photographed. RESULTS: Penetration of black pigments was observed in dentin underneath both high-Cu and low-Cu amalgams in demineralized specimens. Black deposits were unevenly distributed and observed predominantly in dentin near to pulp horns. Discoloration was not limited to outer demineralized dentin but extended beyond this zone. Evenly distributed bluish-green discoloration was observed underneath all high-Cu amalgam specimens independent of demineralization.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1124,'Staining of dentin from amalgam corrosion is induced by demineralization.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1125,'105-113');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1126,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: England\nPMID: 23509831','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1127,'OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of recasting on the biocompatibility of a commercially available Ni-Cr alloy. METHODS: The alloy tested was cast and subsequently recast four more times. For each cast condition, 24 disk shaped specimens were fabricated (5 mm in diameter, 0.5 mm in thickness). All the recasting was performed without adding new alloy. After the first cast and following each recast, the surface composition and microstructure of the alloy were determined using an X-ray fluorescence spectrometer and optical microscope, respectively. The in vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo mucous irritation potential of the cast and recast Ni-Cr alloy were investigated. The results were statistically analysed at the significance level of 0.05. RESULTS: Recasting neither yielded to cytotoxicity or to changes in the surface composition of the Ni-Cr alloy tested. However, an increase in impurities and porosity of the surface structure was observed with recasting. Also, the segregation of the impurities to grain boundaries was evident after multiple castings. After the fourth recast, the alloys showed significantly greater mucosal irritation than the control. CONCLUSION: After fourth recast, the alloy of this type may contribute to mucosal inflammation. Furthermore, there is a need for diverse methods addressing different biological endpoints for the evaluation of dental alloys.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1128,'Effects of recasting on the biocompatibility of a Ni-Cr alloy.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1129,'48-60');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1130,'2012-00-00 2012 Spring');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1131,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 22319764','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1132,'Many treatment options are currently available for single tooth replacement, such as metal-ceramic, all-ceramic, direct or indirect fiber-reinforced composite fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) or implants. Inlay-retained FDPs could be indicated especially when adjacent teeth have preexisting restorations and where implant placement is not possible or not indicated. In such cases, indication of both metal-ceramic and fiber-reinforced composite FDPs has certain disadvantages. This paper describes the use of all-ceramic inlay-retained FDPs with zirconia frameworks, veneered with a press-on technique. The retainer margins were made of pressed ceramic to make adhesive luting possible. In deep cavities, a full contour press-on ceramic all around the retainers increased the available surface area for the adhesive approach.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1133,'Inlay-retained zirconia fixed dental prosthesis: clinical and laboratory procedures.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1134,'52-63');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1135,'2019-00-00 2019');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1136,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 30714054','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1137,'PURPOSE: This study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of resin cement to dentin after applying two adhesive (A) systems with a combination of four different immediate dentin sealing (IDS) strategies, and two surface conditioning (SC) methods. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Human third molars (n = 140) were collected and randomly split (n = 70 each) between the two A systems (Clearfil SE Bond; Kuraray [AC] and Optibond FL; Kerr [AO]). The A groups were further divided into four IDS strategies (2 x one adhesive layer (IDS-1L); 2 x two adhesive layers (IDS-2L); 2 x one adhesive layer and one flowable layer (IDS-F); 2 x no adhesive layer (delayed dentin sealing [DDS]). Finally, each strategy group was categorized into one of the two SC methods (only pumice [SC-P] or pumice and silica coating [SC-PS]), except the DDS group, where only SC-P was used. This resulted in 14 groups of 10 specimens each. The occlusal coronal third was removed from each molar crown with a diamond saw (Isomet 1000), and IDS was applied, followed by temporary restorations. These were removed after 2 weeks of water storage, and the IDS surfaces were subsequently conditioned. The standard adhesive procedure (Syntac Primer and Adhesive, Heliobond; Ivoclar Vivadent) was executed, followed by the application of a resin cement (Variolink II; Ivoclar Vivadent) and photopolymerization. All specimens were subjected to thermocyclic aging (10,000 cycles, 5°C to 55°C). Shear force was applied to the adhesive interface in a universal testing machine (1 mm/min). Fracture types and locations after loading were classified. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and independent samples t tests. RESULTS: AO groups exhibited higher mean SBS values (14.4 ± 6.43) than AC groups (12.85 ± 4.97) (P = 0.03). ANOVA showed the main effect of the applications on the SBS in the different groups (P = 0.00). Both DDS groups showed significantly lower SBS values compared with all the IDS groups (IDS-1L, IDS-2L, IDS-F). No significant differences in SBS results were found between the IDS groups (P = 0.43) and between the SC methods (P = 0.76). Dentin-cement interface failures diminished with the application of IDS. CONCLUSION: IDS improves the SBS compared with DDS. No significant differences were found between the tested conditioning methods.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1138,'Adhesion of resin cement to dentin: effects of adhesive promoters, immediate dentin sealing strategies, and surface conditioning.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1139,'571-576');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1140,'2019-05-01 2019 May 1');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1141,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: India\nPMID: 31316020','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1142,'AIM: The internal fit and resistance to fracture of resin ceramics are to be evaluated compared to that of lithium disilicate as the control group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups of 20 crowns each (GC Cerasmart, Vita Enamic, Coltène Brilliant Crios, and e.max CAD) were cemented on identical metal dies. Marginal gaps were measured before cementation and load to fracture was applied after cementation, half of each group was thermodynamically aged (3,000 cycles of 5° to 55° immersion followed by 200,000 cycles of 100 N load), finally the crowns were loaded until fracture in a universal testing machine. Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) package 23 was used for statistical work. RESULTS: Marginal gaps ranged between 68.5 ± 23.8 µm and 87 ± 29.1 µm while occlusal gaps ranged from 220.7 ± 33.3 µm to 275.5 ± 46.5 µm and were not significantly different between groups. Fracture loads ranged from 633.8 ± 127.3 N to 1596.4 ± 497.7 N with lithium disilicate glass ceramics (LDGCs) and Enamic having higher values than resin nano-ceramics (RNCs). The fracture resistance was more related to material than aging and gap value. CONCLUSION: The margin adaptation of resin ceramics was comparable to lithium disilicate with no significant difference. Lithium disilicate showed a higher resistance than resin ceramics and there was a higher resistance to fracture for polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN) than RNCs. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Resin ceramics can have marginal adaptation and fracture resistance within clinical acceptance; therefore, they can be a good chair-side solution achieved in a single appointment session.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1143,'Evaluation of the Adaptation and Fracture Resistance of Three CAD-CAM Resin Ceramics: An In vitro Study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1144,'155-164');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1145,'2004-04-00 2004 Mar-Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1146,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 15119865','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1147,'PURPOSE: This overview presents a description of organofunctional trialkoxysilane coupling agents (silanes), their chemistry, properties, use, and some of the main clinical experiences in dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The main emphasis was on major dental journals that have been reviewed from 1958 up to the latest research news from 2002. A MEDLINE search with the key words "dental silanes" was used. Special silane literature and journals outside dentistry were also cited. RESULTS: The main emphasis is on the use of silanes in prosthetic and restorative dentistry. Clinical relevance was based mainly on either short- or long-term tests. The interpretation of various results is not given, mainly because of controversial observations that may be very difficult to explain. Nevertheless, the majority of the clinical results pointed to silanes playing a significant role in the adhesion process. Silane reaction mechanisms were not entirely understood, and there exist several theories for bonding mechanisms for silanes and substrates. CONCLUSION: Dental materials offer a continuously challenging forum for silanes, and silanes will play an essential role in material development.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1148,'An introduction to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1149,'225-233');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1150,'2020-00-00 2020');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1151,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: England\nPMID: 32789310','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1152,'AIM: To evaluate the fracture resistance and failure pattern of 3D-printed and milled composite resin crowns as a function of different material thicknesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three typodont tooth models were prepared to receive a full coverage composite resin crown with different thicknesses (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 mm). The prepared master casts were digitally scanned using an intraoral scanner, and the STL files were used to fabricate 60 nanocomposite crowns divided into two groups according to the material thickness (n = 10) and fabrication method: a 3D-printed group (3D) using an SLA printer with nanocomposite, and a milled group (M) using a milling machine and composite blocks. All crowns were adhesively seated on stereolithography (SLA)-fabricated dies. All samples were subjected to thermomechanical loading and fracture testing. The load to fracture [N] was recorded and the failure pattern evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed using a two-way ANOVA followed by a Bonferroni post hoc test. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05. RESULTS: The 3D group showed the highest values for fracture resistance compared with the milled group within the three tested thicknesses (P < 0.001). The 3D and M groups presented significantly higher load to fracture for the 1.5-mm thickness (2383.5 ± 188.58 N and 1284.7 ± 77.62 N, respectively) compared with the 1.0-mm thickness (1945.9 ± 65.32 N and 932.1 ± 41.29 N, respectively) and the 0.5-mm thickness, which showed the lowest values in both groups (1345.0 ± 101.15 N and 519.3 ± 32.96 N, respectively). A higher incidence of irreparable fractures was observed for the 1.5-mm thickness. CONCLUSION: 3D-printed composite resin crowns showed high fracture resistance at different material thicknesses and can be suggested as a viable solution in conservative dentistry.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1153,'Effect of material thickness on the fracture resistance and failure pattern of 3D-printed composite crowns.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1154,'239-240');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1155,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 20820454','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1156,'The PowerPoint generation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1157,'55-67');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1158,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: England\nPMID: 30848255','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1159,'OBJECTIVES: To review the current metal-based additive manufacturing (AM) technologies, namely powder bed fusion (PBF) technologies, and their current prosthodontic applications. The PBF technologies reviewed are selective laser sintering (SLS), selective laser melting (SLM), and electron beam melting (EBM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The literature on metal AM technologies was considered, and the AM procedures and their current applications in prosthodontics were collated and described. Published articles about AM metal in dental care were searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science). All studies related to the description, analysis, and evaluation of prosthodontic applications using metal AM technologies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: AM technologies are reliable for many applications in dentistry, including metal frameworks for removable partial dentures (RPDs), overdentures, tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), and metal frameworks for splinting implant impression abutments. However, further studies are needed in future to evaluate the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical outcome throughout function of AM technologies.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1160,'Metal additive manufacturing technologies: literature review of current status and prosthodontic applications.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1161,'Copyright©American Journal of Dentistry.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1162,'33-38');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1163,'2020-02-00 2020 Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1164,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32056413','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1165,'PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of different contamination media and cleaning regimens on the adhesion of resin cement to lithium disilicate ceramic. METHODS: Specimens (IPS e.max CAD) (n =15 per group) were etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid gel. While half of the specimens were silanized after etching, the other half was left etched only. After contamination with either saliva or dental stone, they were further divided into four subgroups depending on the cleaning regimens: water rinsing only (WR), 80% ethanol (E), 37% phosphoric acid (PA), cleaning gel (CG). All specimens were re-silanized, coated with adhesive resin (Heliobond) and resin cement (Variolink II) was bonded. After thermocycling (5.000x, 5-55°C), ceramic-cement interface was loaded under shear (1 mm/minute) and failure types were classified. Data (MPa) were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA, Dunnett-T3 tests and Weibull moduli were calculated. RESULTS: Saliva contamination (4.7±2.2-15.4±2.7) resulted in significantly lower bond strength compared to dental stone (17.8±4.8-23.6±2.7). Silanization before contamination showed protective effect especially for saliva (20.1±4.5-24.7±3.9) compared to non-silanized groups (4.7±2.2-15.4±2.7). Weibull modulus was the lowest for saliva-contaminated groups after cleaning with WR (2.22, 5.01) or E (1.14, 5.77) without and with initial silanization, respectively. Adhesive failures (272 out of 285) were commonly observed in all groups. Saliva contamination decreased the adhesion of luting cement to lithium disilicate ceramic considerably more than dental stone contamination, but silanization prior to try-in prevented deterioration in adhesion. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Preliminary silanization of hydrofluoric acid etched lithium disilicate ceramic prior to saliva or dental stone contamination re-established resin luting cement adhesion, irrespective of the cleaning regimen used.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1166,'Treatment of surface contamination of lithium disilicate ceramic before adhesive luting.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1167,'27-37');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1168,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: England\nPMID: 32207459','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1169,'OBJECTIVE: The objective of this narrative review was to summarize the current status and future perspectives of additive manufacturing (AM) technologies with a particular emphasis on manufacturing zirconia-based materials. AM technologies include vat photopolymerization, material jetting, material extrusion, selective laser sintering (SLS), and selective laser melting (SLM) technologies based on either powder bed fusion (PBF) technologies or direct energy deposition, or sheet lamination based on binder jetting technologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive literature review was performed, specifically evaluating AM technologies assigned for processing zirconia. An electronic database search was performed using keywords and MeSH terms. The search was confined to full-text articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals between 1999 and 2018. RESULTS: A total of 62 articles were included in this review, of which 56 described the AM processes and 6 reported on AM applications in the field of dentistry. A broad diversity of literature exists regarding AM technologies for ceramic materials, which complicates the establishment of a classification system for the current AM technologies for zirconia. The variations in the composition of zirconia slurries or mixtures across different technologies often made it difficult to identify the proper nature of such information. Mechanical properties of printed zirconia materials utilizing different technologies were investigated through a wide range of tests. Overall, the review indicates that manufacturing zirconia using AM technologies could be achieved without issues, but mechanical properties appear to be poor compared with conventional manufacturing procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate the necessity for further potential improvement in AM technologies for manufacturing zirconia reconstructions along with advances in material composition before zirconia could be considered as a material for standard care.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1170,'Additive manufacturing technologies for processing zirconia in dental applications.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1171,'315-325');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1172,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 27978603','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1173,'10.1111/jcpe.12665');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1174,'AIM: To test whether implants placed with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR) differ from implants placed without GBR regarding survival rate, interproximal marginal bone level (MBL), and dimensions of buccal bone and mucosa. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients treated 15 years earlier were included. Machined implants had been inserted following one of the two procedures: (i) with simultaneous GBR, which involved grafting with particulate deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM), autogenous bone (AB), or a mixture of the two and defect covering with a native collagen membrane (CM) (GBR group) and (ii) standard implant placement without GBR (control group). One GBR and one control implant in each patient were selected for analysis. At 15 years, the dimensions of buccal bone and mucosa were measured with cone beam computed tomography. The interproximal MBL was evaluated at 5 and 15 years on periapical radiographs. RESULTS: The 15-year survival rate amounted to 95.6% for GBR implants and to 94.1% for control implants. At 15 years, interproximal MBL measured 1.44 ± 0.84 mm for the GBR group and 1.69 ± 0.84 mm for the control group. From the 5- to the 15-year examination, the loss of interproximal MBL reached 0.23 ± 0.70 mm for the GBR group and 0.28 ± 0.63 mm for the control group. At 15 years, buccal MBL measured 1.98 ± 0.98 mm for GBR implants and 2.19 ± 1.29 mm for control implants. None of these values reached statistical significant differences between the groups. In cases in which GBR involved grafting with DBBM, GBR implants achieved approximately 0.3-0.4 mm higher mean values in buccal bone dimensions and mucosal level in comparison to control implants. In contrast, when GBR was performed by grafting with AB without DBBM, implants rendered less favourable results in buccal bone and mucosa dimensions than the control implants. CONCLUSIONS: Implants placed with simultaneous GBR using particulate DBBM and/or AB in combination with CM did not significantly differ from implants completely placed into pristine bone with respect to 15-year implant survival, interproximal bone levels, and dimensions of buccal bone and mucosa. The machined-surface implants placed both into native bone and sites augmented by GBR exhibited stable interproximal bone levels.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1175,'Clinical and radiographic intra-subject comparison of implants placed with or without guided bone regeneration: 15-year results.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1176,'© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1177,'556-565');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1178,'2017-05-00 2017 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1179,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 28207942','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1180,'10.1111/jcpe.12709');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1181,'AIM: To assess (i) bone regeneration around implants placed early in sites with or without ridge preservation and (ii) if the bone substitute material (DBBM-C) has to be removed at implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In eight beagle dogs, three sites were randomly assigned to ridge preservation (DBBM-C plus collagen matrix (CMX)) (two sites; RP) or spontaneous healing (1 site; SH). Four weeks later, in one of the RP sites, dental implants were placed without removing the DBBM-C (RP1), whereas in RP2 and SH sites all non-integrated DBBM-C and/or granulation tissue were removed before implant placement and concomitant GBR. Histomorphometric outcomes were assessed at 4 and 12 weeks. RESULTS: The median buccal fBIC (first bone-to-implant contact) was located more apical in groups RP1: 1.34 mm (0.09; 2.96) and RP2: 1.41 mm (0.54; 2.72) than in group SH: 0.79 mm (0.26; 1.50) (p = 0.452) at 4 weeks. At 12 weeks, median buccal fBIC values were for RP1: 0.88 mm (0.00; 2.33), for RP2: 0.16 mm (0.00; 1.33) and for SH: 0.00 mm (0.00; 0.98) (p = 0.362). BIC values increased over 12 weeks in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ridge preservation followed by early implant placement led to higher BIC values at 12 than at 4 weeks. There is no need to remove the biomaterial at implant placement to ensure osseointegration. No relevant differences were observed between the three groups for any outcome measure.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1182,'Effect of ridge preservation for early implant placement - is there a need to remove the biomaterial?');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1183,'© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1184,'988-996');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1185,'2018-12-00 2018 Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1186,replace('Number: 6\n2 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 30328283','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1187,'10.1111/cid.12674');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1188,'OBJECTIVES: To analyze the effect of veneering of the submucosal part of zirconia abutments and the type of retention (cemented vs screw-retained) on clinical, microbiological, and histological outcomes of single-tooth implant crowns. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 44 patients with a single missing tooth to be replaced by an implant in the anterior region participated in the study. Implants were randomly assigned to receive zirconia-based CAD/CAM reconstructions using either one of four treatment modalities: cement-retained with submucosal veneering (CR-P), cement-retained without submucosal veneering (CR-W), screw-retained with submucosal veneering (SR-P), and screw-retained without submucosal veneering (SR-W). Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline (after crown insertion), at 6 and 12 months. Histological and microbiological analyses were performed at 6 months. Descriptive statistics and the Kruskal-Wallis test were applied. RESULTS: The clinical evaluation revealed, in general, stable peri-implant soft tissues with minimal differences for all measured parameters between the four groups, except for bleeding on probing with the two cemented groups exhibiting higher values at 12 months (35.0% ± 26.5% for CR-W and 25.0% ± 38.8% for CR-P versus 13.1 ± 14.8 for SR-W and 13.0 ± 18.2 for SR-P). The descriptive and semi-quantitative histology showed a trend for a higher inflammatory reaction in the two cemented (a medium to high number of inflammatory cells) compared to the screw-retained groups (low number of inflammatory cells) at 6 months. The microbiological test demonstrated low bacterial counts and a similar distribution in between the groups except for two species (Tannerella forsythia and Peptostreptococcus micros) that were found in higher counts in the cemented groups at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Submucosal veneering of zirconia abutments did not negatively affect the health of the peri-implant tissues. The cemented groups, though, did show a clinical and histological trend to higher levels of inflammation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1189,'Randomized controlled clinical study of veneered zirconia abutments for single implant crowns: Clinical, histological, and microbiological outcomes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1190,'© 2018 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1191,'499-507');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1192,'2018-05-00 2018 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1193,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 29656495','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1194,'10.1111/clr.13147');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1195,'OBJECTIVES: To assess two- and three-dimensional changes of the peri-implant tissues as well as clinical, biological, and radiological outcomes of implants having been treated with resorbable or nonresorbable membranes at 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients were re-examined after having received a single-tooth implant in the esthetic zone in conjunction with guided bone regeneration (GBR) using either a resorbable (RES) or a titanium-reinforced nonresorbable membrane (N-RES) and demineralized bovine bone mineral. Volumetric and linear as well as clinical and radiographic measurements were performed at crown insertion (baseline), at 1 year (FU-1) and 3 years (FU-3). Statistics were performed by means of parametric and nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Minor, but ongoing buccal volume loss was observed in both groups during the 3-year follow-up. A slightly higher volume loss was observed in group RES (-0.22 mm) compared to N-RES (-0.14 mm) at 1 year (FU-1), but aligned at 3 years (FU-3) RES (-0.30 mm) N-RES (-0.32 mm). All changes over time were statistically significantly different within (p < .05), but not between the groups (p > .05). Stable median interproximal bone levels after 3 years (FU-3); 0.26 mm (0.04; 0.36) (RES) and 0.14 mm (0.08; 0.20) (N-RES) and healthy tissues (BOP, PD) were obtained with both membranes. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities resulted in minor, but ongoing contour changes of the peri-implant tissues. Stable interproximal bone levels and healthy tissues can be obtained with membranes up to 3 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1196,'Randomized controlled clinical study assessing two membranes for guided bone regeneration of peri-implant bone defects: 3-year results.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1197,'45');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1198,'484-494');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1199,'2018-04-00 2018 Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1200,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 29266354','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1201,'10.1111/jcpe.12860');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1202,'AIM: To assess volumetric and linear changes following ridge preservation (RP) or spontaneous healing plus early implant placement with or without simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In eight adult beagle dogs, the mesial roots of the mandibular P3, P4 and M1 were extracted. Sites were randomized to either ridge preservation (RP) or spontaneous healing (SH). Four weeks later dental implants were placed either with (RP2) or without removing non-integrated DBBM (RP1). In RP2 and SH sites, GBR was applied using a demineralized bovine bone mineral and a resorbable membrane. Impressions were taken postextraction (SH)/postridge preservation (RP1; RP2), before and after implant placement and after healing of 4 and 12 weeks. Casts were digitized to allow for superimposition and measurement of contour alterations. RESULTS: Median ridge width reduction from postextraction (SH)/postridge preservation (RP1;RP2) to implant placement ranged from -13.9% (SH) to -19.7% (RP) (p > .05), whereas from implant placement to sacrifice, it was statistically significantly lower in group RP1 (-5.5%) compared to group SH (-23.4%; p = .0013) and group RP2 (-22.1%; p = .0026). Encompassing the entire study period, median ridge width changes ranged between -17.8% (SH), -24.8% (RP2) and -32.5% (RP1) (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the treatment modality and the healing period, part of the ridge contour was lost. Early implant placement after ridge preservation without additional GBR resulted in a more stable ridge contour after implant placement compared to controls.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1203,'Volumetric changes following ridge preservation or spontaneous healing and early implant placement with simultaneous guided bone regeneration.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1204,'549-556');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1205,'2018-08-00 2018 Jul/Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1206,replace('Number: 4\n8 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 29889920','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1207,'10.11607/prd.3636');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1208,'The objectives of this study were to determine the quantitative changes after different ridge preservation techniques (primary aim) and to assess the possibility of placing a dental implant, the bone quality, and the need for bone augmentation (secondary aim). A total of 35 patients who required extraction of at least one tooth (incisor, canine, or premolar) provided 35 single-gap extraction sites. After minimally invasive tooth removal, the sockets were randomly scheduled for one of four treatment modalities: placement of a deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM; Endobon, Biomet 3i) covered with a soft tissue punch from the palate (T1); placement of DBBM alone (T2); placement of DBBM covered with a resorbable collagen membrane (OsseoGuard, Biomet 3i) (T3); or no additional treatment (T4). Silicone impressions were taken before and 6 months after extraction for quantitative-volumetric evaluation (primary outcome). The possibility of placing an implant, bone quality, and need for further bone augmentation were also noted (secondary outcomes). During the study period, no adverse events were observed. No statistically significant difference was found between the four treatments regarding the primary and secondary outcome parameters (P > .05). However, T4 showed double the buccal contour change, with the highest variance compared to the other three groups (T1 -0.874 ± 0.713; T2 -0.968 ± 0.344; T3 -1.26 ± 0.942; T4 -2.15 ± 1.349). Although no statistically significant difference was found between the four treatment modalities, placement of DBBM resulted in only half the contour change (< 1 mm) compared to control sites (> 2 mm). Ridge preservation with a DBBM with or without soft tissue punch should be considered in esthetically demanding cases and delayed or late implant placement.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1209,'Dimensional Evaluation of Different Ridge Preservation Techniques with a Bovine Xenograft: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1210,'1065-1073');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1211,'2013-10-00 2013 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1212,replace('Number: 10\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 22697628','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1213,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02522.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1214,'AIM: The aim of the present prospective study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of implants placed simultaneously with guided bone regeneration (GBR) using resorbable and non-resorbable membranes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The original study population consisted of 72 patients receiving a total of 265 implants. In all GBR-treated sites, demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) was used in combination either with a collagen (CM) or an Expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (e-PTFE) membrane. A total of 112 implants was treated with CM, 41 implants were treated with e-PTFE membranes, and 112 served as a control group because implants were entirely surrounded by bone and did not need any GBR procedures. Clinical and radiographic analyses were performed after a period of 12-14 years. RESULTS: The median follow-up time was 12.5 years (range 12-14 years). A total of 58 patients participated in the present investigation, corresponding to 80.5% of the original study population. The cumulative implant survival rate at the follow-up examination was 93.2%. For the control group the cumulative survival rate was 94.6%, for the CM 91.9%, and for the e-PTFE 92.6%. Differences among the groups were not statistically significant. The radiographically determined marginal bone level (MBL) amounted to: control 2.36 mm (SD), CM 2.4 mm (SD), e-PTFE 2.53 mm (SD). There is no evidence (P < 0.2) that the slope of bone level over time is different for the three treatment groups. CONCLUSION: It is concluded that implants placed simultaneously with GBR procedures using resorbable or non-resorbable membranes reveal a high survival rate ranging from 91.9% to 92.6%, therefore it is considered to be a safe and predictable therapy. [Correction added after online publication 30 November 2012: the marginal bone level of CM, e-PTFE, and control was corrected to ''control 2.36 mm (SD), CM 2.4 mm (SD), e-PTFE 2.53 mm (SD)'' in the Results section].');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1215,'Long-term outcome of implants placed with guided bone regeneration (GBR) using resorbable and non-resorbable membranes after 12-14 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1216,'314-319');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1217,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 24373056','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1218,'10.1111/clr.12322');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1219,'OBJECTIVES: To assess the cleaning potential of three different instrumentation methods commonly used for implant surface decontamination in vitro, using a bone defect-simulating model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dental implants were stained with indelible ink and mounted in resin models, which represented standardized peri-implantitis defects with different bone defect angulations (30, 60 and 90°). Cleaning procedures were performed by either an experienced dental hygienist or a 2nd-year postgraduate student. The treatment was repeated 20 times for each instrumentation, that is, with a Gracey curette, an ultrasonic device and an air powder abrasive device (PAD) with glycine powder. After each run, implants were removed and images were taken to detect color remnants in order to measure planimetrically the cumulative uncleaned surface area. SEM images were taken to assess micromorphologic surface changes (magnification 10,000 ×). Results were tested for statistical differences using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: The areas of uncleaned surfaces (%, mean ± standard deviations) for curettes, ultrasonic tips, and airflow accounted for 24.1 ± 4.8%, 18.5 ± 3.8%, and 11.3 ± 5.4%, respectively. These results were statistically significantly different (P < 0.0001). The cleaning potential of the airflow device increased with wider defects. SEM evaluation displayed distinct surface alterations after instrumentation with steel tips, whereas glycine powder instrumentation had only a minute effect on the surface topography. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present in vitro model, airflow devices using glycine powders seem to constitute an efficient therapeutic option for the debridement of implants in peri-implantitis defects. Still, some uncleaned areas remained. In wide defects, differences between instruments are more accentuated.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1220,'In vitro cleaning potential of three different implant debridement methods.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1221,'2018-04-00 2018 Mar/Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1222,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 29447309','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1223,'10.11607/prd.2846');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1224,'The aim of this study was to compare customized zirconia and titanium abutments with respect to survival rates and technical, biologic, and esthetic outcomes. A total of 28 patients with single implants were randomly assigned to 12 customized zirconia (test, AC) and 16 customized titanium (control, MC) abutments. Technical, biologic, and esthetic outcomes were assessed after a mean follow-up time of 18 months. No biologic complications were observed, and no statistical difference for the bone-to-implant distance was found at 18 months (AC -0.05 ± 0.51 mm vs MC -0.28 ± 0.77 mm; P = .40). A similar discoloration of the peri-implant mucosa was observed (ΔE(AC) 9.6 ± 5.4, ΔE(MC) 7.6 ± 5.3; P = .46). The mean papilla score values evaluation presented no statistically significant differences between the test and control groups (AC 2.07 ± 0.94, MC 1.96 ± 0.84). At 18 months, reconstructions based on zirconia and titanium abutments exhibited similar survival rates and similar clinical outcomes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1225,'Single-Tooth Replacement Using Dental Implants Supporting All-Ceramic and Metal-Based Reconstructions: Results at 18 Months of Loading.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1226,'© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1227,'1016-1026');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1228,replace('Number: 10\n12 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31332835','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1229,'10.1111/clr.13515');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1230,'OBJECTIVES: To test whether block bone substitute used for guided bone regeneration (GBR) of peri-implant defects leads to different thickness of the augmented hard tissue than particulate bone substitute. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 24 patients, 24 two-piece dental implants were placed >4 months after tooth extraction. Following random allocation, 12 peri-implant bone dehiscences were grafted with an individually shaped block of deproteinized bovine-derived bone mineral (DBBM) and 12 bone dehiscences with particulate DBBM. All the sites were covered with a collagen membrane stabilized with resorbable pins. Immediately after wound closure and after 6 months, the horizontal thickness (HT) of the augmented hard tissue was measured at the level of implant shoulder using cone beam-computed tomography. RESULTS: After wound closure, the median HT measured 3.35 mm (mean: 3.38) in the block group and 2.85 mm (mean: 2.73) in the particulate group. At 6 months, the median HT decreased to 2.90 mm (mean: 2.71) in the block group and to 0.2 mm (mean: 0.52) in the particulate group. This difference was statistically significant (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Block bone substitute used for GBR of peri-implant defects was superior to particulate bone substitute regarding the dimension of the augmented hard tissue after 6 months of healing.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1231,'Hard tissue changes after guided bone regeneration of peri-implant defects comparing block versus particulate bone substitutes: 6-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1232,'Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1233,'67');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1234,'58-65');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1235,'Journal of dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1236,'1879-176X 0300-5712');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1237,replace('Place: England\nPMID: 28939484','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1238,'J Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1239,'10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.008');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1240,'OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical and patient-reported outcomes of bi-layered, all-ceramic posterior single crowns (SCs) supported by zirconia implants in an uncontrolled, prospective, multicenter study. METHODS: In two centers, 60 patients received 71 one-piece zirconia oral implants to be restored with either SCs (n=49) or three-unit fixed dental prostheses (n=11). Of these patients, 45 implants were restored with all-ceramic, zirconia-based posterior SCs (one per patient). Survival rates of implants and reconstructions were assessed, and technical success was evaluated according to modified U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Furthermore, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed by applying visual analog scales (VAS). Kaplan-Meier (KM) plots and log-rank tests were used for success/survival analyses. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was used to evaluate time effects on response variables (PROMs, USPHS criteria). RESULTS: Forty patients with 40 SCs could be evaluated after 36.7±1.2months. No SC was replaced, resulting in 100% survival. The KM success estimate was 87.5% (two chippings, one restoration margin, and one contour were rated Charlie). In general, the incidence of chipping (p=.0005) and occlusal roughness (p=.0003) was frequent. Compared with the pre-treatment patient surveys (67-93%), all surveys at prosthetic delivery except for speech (p=.139) showed significantly improved VAS scores (81-94%; p<.0001). Thereafter, no decrease in satisfaction could be observed over time until the 3-year follow-up (86-93%; p≥.390). CONCLUSION: Veneered, zirconia-based SCs supported by zirconia implants satisfied patients'' needs highly. However, significant incidence of chipping and roughness of the veneering ceramic may compromise the clinical long-term outcome for this indication. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Posterior, zirconia-based SCs supported by zirconia oral implants entirely survived the follow-up period of 3 years, but two major chippings, one a significant marginal opening and one pronounced over-contouring, resulted in a reduced KM success estimate of 87.5% after 36 months of observation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1241,'All-ceramic, bi-layered crowns supported by zirconia implants: Three-year results of a prospective multicenter study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1242,'e244-e251');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1243,'2017-11-00 2017 Nov');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1244,replace('Number: 11\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 28111809','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1245,'10.1111/clr.13004');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1246,'OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not chemical and/or physical modifications of polyethylene glycol (PEG) hydrogels influence degradation time, matrix/membrane stability, and integration into surrounding hard and soft tissues. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 28 rabbits, six treatment modalities were randomly applied to six sites on the rabbit skull: a dense network PEG hydrogel (PEG HD), a medium-dense network PEG hydrogel (PEG MD), a medium-dense network PEG hydrogel modified with an RGD sequence (PEG MD/RGD), a medium-dense network PEG hydrogel modified with RGD with reduced carboxymethyl cellulose (PEG MD/RGD_LV), a loose network PEG hydrogel modified with RGD (PEG LD/RGD), and a collagen membrane (BG). Descriptive histology and histomorphometry were performed at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. RESULTS: PEG HD revealed the highest percentage of residual matrix at all time points starting with 47.2% (95% CI: 32.8-63.8%) at 1 week and ending with 23.4% (95% CI: 10.3-49.8%) at 6 weeks. The hydrogel with the loosest network (PEG LD/RGD) was stable the first 2 weeks and then degraded continuously with a final area of 8.3% (95% CI: 3.2-21.2%). PEG HD was the most stable and densely stained membrane, whereas PEG MD and PEG LD matrices integrated faster, but started to degrade to a higher degree between 2 and 4 weeks. PEG MD degradation was dependent on the addition of RGD and the amount of CMC. CONCLUSIONS: Chemical and/or physical modifications of PEG hydrogels influenced matrix stability. PEG MD/RGD demonstrated an optimal balance between degradation time and integration into the surrounding soft and hard tissues.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1247,'Biodegradation and tissue integration of various polyethylene glycol matrices: a comparative study in rabbits.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1248,'1592-1599');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1249,replace('Number: 12\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 28653343','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1250,'10.1111/clr.13030');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1251,'AIM: To test whether guided bone regeneration (GBR) of peri-implant defects at zirconia (ZrO(2) ) implants differs from GBR at titanium (Ti) implants regarding the bone integration of the implant and of the grafting material. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Maxillary premolars and molars were extracted in seven dogs. After 5 months, four semi-saddle bone defects were created in each maxilla. Implant placement and simultaneous GBR were performed using the following randomly assigned modalities: (1) ZrO(2) implant + deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) granules + a collagen membrane (CM), (2) ZrO(2) implant + DBBM with 10% collagen matrix + CM, (3) ZrO(2) implant + DBBM block + CM, and (4) Ti implant + DBBM granules + CM. After 3 months, one central histological section of each site was prepared. Histomorphometrical assessments were performed evaluating the augmented area (AA) within the former bone defect (primary outcome), the area of new bone (NB), bone substitute (BS), and non-mineralized tissue (NMT) within AA in mm(2) . In addition, the distance between the most coronal bone-to-implant contact and the margin of the former bone defect (fBIC-DEF), and the bone-to-implant contact fraction (BIC) were measured in mm. RESULTS: AA measured 8.6 ± 4.0 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM granules, 4.7 ± 1.6 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM-collagen, 5.1 ± 1.9 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM block, and 7.6 ± 2.8 mm(2) for Ti implant + DBBM granules. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment modalities (P > 0.05). NB reached 2.0 ± 1.7 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM granules, 0.9 ± 0.9 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM-collagen, 2.1 ± 0.9 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM block, and 0.8 ± 0.6 mm(2) for Ti implant + DBBM granules. fBIC-DEF amounted to 2.1 ± 1.7 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM granules, to 2.7 ± 1.1 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM-collagen, to 2.9 ± 1.2 mm(2) for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM block, and to 3.4 ± 0.4 mm(2) for Ti implant + DBBM granules. BIC measured 70 ± 19% for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM granules, 69 ± 22% for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM-collagen, 77 ± 30% for ZrO(2) implant + DBBM block, and 66 ± 27% for Ti implant + DBBM granules. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present pilot study suggest that zirconia and titanium implants grafted with DBBM granules and covered with a collagen membrane do not perform differently regarding the augmented ridge contour, the NB formation, and the implant osseointegration.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1252,'Guided bone regeneration at zirconia and titanium dental implants: a pilot histological investigation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1253,'32');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1254,'e64');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1255,'Brazilian oral research');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1256,'1807-3107 1806-8324');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1257,'2018-08-06 2018 Aug 6');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1258,replace('19 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Brazil\nPMID: 30088551','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1259,'Braz Oral Res');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1260,'10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2018.vol32.0064');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1261,'This is a cross-sectional study that aimed to estimate maxillary sinus floor (MSF) pneumatization in single missing tooth of posterior maxilla, by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT images were analyzed bilaterally and divided into 2 groups: edentulous site (EdS) - edentulous single region of upper second premolar, first or second molars; Tooth site (TS) - contralateral region homologous to the EdS region, with tooth present. Variables evaluated were: sinus height (SH), estimated sinus pneumatization (eSP: ∆ EdS - TS), healed ridge height (HR) and presence of localized sinus pneumatization (LSP) in molars teeth at TS. HR were categorized according to therapeutic option for posterior maxilla. 183 CBCT scans were included and it was observed that EdS presented a higher SH than the TS (p < 0.001) showing an eSP of 0.9 ± 2.93 mm. First molars presented the highest SH for both sides, although significant differences were detected when compared to second molars. First molars were mostly affected by LSP at TS (36 out of 43). Individuals with LSP at TS presented lower HR than the ones without LSP (p < 0.05). 54% of the cases presenting LSP obtained HR < 5 mm, which indicates sinus lift surgery. The present study showed that tooth loss in posterior maxilla favors sinus pneumatization and the identification of LSP at molar roots seems to indicate a greater necessity for sinus lift surgeries.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1262,'Maxillary sinus floor pneumatization and alveolar ridge resorption after tooth loss: a cross-sectional study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1263,'49');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1264,'171-184');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1265,'Journal of periodontal & implant science');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1266,'2093-2278 2093-2286');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1267,replace('Number: 3\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPMID: 31285941 \nPMCID: PMC6599753','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1268,'J Periodontal Implant Sci');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1269,'10.5051/jpis.2019.49.3.171');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1270,'PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of intra-alveolar socket grafting, subepithelial connective tissue grafts, and individualized abutments on peri-implant hard and soft tissue outcomes following immediate implant placement. METHODS: This randomized experimental study employed 5 mongrel dogs, with 4 sites per dog (total of 20 sites). The mesial roots of P3 and P4 were extracted in each hemimandible and immediate dental implants were placed. Each site was randomly assigned to 1 of 4 different treatment groups: standardized healing abutment (control group), alloplastic bone substitute material (BSS) + standardized healing abutment (SA group), BSS + individualized healing abutment (IA group), and BSS + individualized healing abutment + a subepithelial connective tissue graft (IAG group). Clinical, histological, and profilometric analyses were performed. The intergroup differences were calculated using the Bonferroni test, setting statistical significance at P<0.05. RESULTS: Clinically, the control and SA groups demonstrated a coronal shift in the buccal height of the mucosa (0.88±0.48 mm and 0.37±1.1 mm, respectively). The IA and IAG groups exhibited an apical shift of the mucosa (-0.7±1.15 mm and -1.1±0.96 mm, respectively). Histologically, the SA and control groups demonstrated marginal mucosa heights of 4.1±0.28 mm and 4.0±0.53 mm relative to the implant shoulder, respectively. The IA and IAG groups, in contrast, only showed a height of 2.6 mm. In addition, the height of the mucosa in relation to the most coronal buccal bone crest or bone substitute particles was not significantly different among the groups. Volumetrically, the IA group (-0.73±0.46 mm) lost less volume on the buccal side than the control (-0.93±0.44 mm), SA (-0.97±0.73 mm), and IAG (-0.88±0.45 mm) groups. CONCLUSIONS: The control group demonstrated the most favorable change of height of the margo mucosae and the largest dimensions of the peri-implant soft tissues. However, the addition of a bone substitute material and an individualized healing abutment resulted in slightly better preservation of the peri-implant soft tissue contour.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1271,'The effects of hard and soft tissue grafting and individualization of healing abutments at immediate implants: an experimental study in dogs.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1272,'920–926');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1273,'2019-08-00 2019 July/August');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1274,replace('Number: 4\n3 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 30779821','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1275,'10.11607/jomi.7318');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1276,'PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective randomized clinical pilot study was to compare the three-dimensional changes of grafted maxillary sinuses when deproteinized bovine bone (DBB) or cortical mineralized allogeneic bone (MAB) was used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients were randomly assigned to receive either DBB or MAB for lateral-approach maxillary sinus augmentation. Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were performed preoperatively (T0), immediately after (T1), and at approximately 6 months posthoperatively (T2). Three-dimensional analysis of the radiographic volumetric changes was performed for DBB and MAB by measuring the difference in unoccupied sinus volumes at T1 and T2. RESULTS: In the DBB group, a statistically significant increase in unoccupied sinus volume was found at T2 when compared to T1 (P = .001). It represents a mean resorption rate of 23.8% ± 15.9%. Similarly in the MAB group, a statistically significant increase in unoccupied sinus volume was found at T2 when compared to T1 (P = .007). The mean resorption rate in the MAB group was 19.5% ± 10.1%. There was no statistically significant difference between the contraction of DBB (23.8%) and MAB (19.5%) (P = .52). CONCLUSION: Both DBB and MAB showed sufficient volume stability at T2 (mean 6.3 ± 1.6 months) postoperatively for 10- to 13-mm-implant placement without the need for additional grafting.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1277,'Volumetric Analysis of Allogenic and Xenogenic Bone Substitutes Used in Maxillary Sinus Augmentations Utilizing Cone Beam CT: A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1278,'872-881');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1279,'2019-09-00 2019 Sep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1280,replace('Number: 9\n5 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31172607','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1281,'10.1111/clr.13492');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1282,'OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not the use of a xenogeneic block loaded with rhBMP-2 results in superior radiological and profilometric outcomes compared to an autogenous bone block. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients randomly received a xenogeneic block loaded with rhBMP-2 (test) or an autogenous bone block (control) for primary augmentation. The ridge width (RW) was evaluated by means of a CBCT scan after augmentation surgery and at 4 months, prior to implant placement. Surface scans were taken prior to augmentation and at 4 months for profilometric analyses. Data were analyzed with Wilcoxon-signed rank test, Mann-Whitney test, or nonparametric ANOVA models. RESULTS: The median RW after augmentation amounted to 7.13 mm (Q1 = 6.02; Q3 = 8.47) for test and 6.86 mm (Q1 = 5.99; Q3 = 8.95) for control. During 4 months of healing, the total RW decreased statistically significantly and measured 5.35 mm (Q1 = 4.53; Q3 = 6.7) for test and 5.15 mm (Q1 = 3.57; Q3 = 7.24) for control (p = 0.0005). The differences between the groups were not statistically significant (p > 0.5899). The buccal soft tissue contour slightly increased for test (0.83 mm; Q1 = 0.62; Q3 = 1.87) and control (1.16 mm; Q1 = 0.50; Q3 = 1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Both treatment modalities successfully increased the ridge width to a similar extent. The shrinkage during healing was not greater in the test than in the control group. The impact of hard tissue augmentation on the soft tissue contour was, however, minimal.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1283,'Randomized clinical study using xenograft blocks loaded with bone morphogenetic protein-2 or autogenous bone blocks for ridge augmentation - A three-dimensional analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1284,'617-626');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1285,replace('Number: 7\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31021451','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1286,'10.1111/clr.13447');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1287,'OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical and laboratory time efficiency and quality of outcomes for posterior single implant crowns by means of a model-free digital workflow using digital impressions immediately after implant placement. METHODS: Forty patients missing a single posterior tooth received implant therapy. For within-subject comparison, digital impressions were taken immediately after implant placement and conventional impressions after implant healing. Two monolithic zirconia crowns were fabricated using a laboratory-based CAD-CAM system. One crown was produced from the immediate digital impression and a model-free digital workflow (test group), and the second crown was produced from the conventional impression and a hybrid workflow (control group). Clinical and laboratory time was recorded. Quality of outcomes was evaluated double-blinded. A paired-sample t test was applied for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The total mean chairside time (impression and delivery) was 23.2 min (95%CI 22.2, 24.3) in the test group and 25.7 min (95%CI 24.4, 26.9) in the control group (p = 0.013). Significantly less laboratory time was needed in the model-free digital workflow (13.6 min, 95%CI 11.5, 15.6) as compared to the model-based hybrid workflow (29.9 min, 95%CI 25.7, 34.2) (p < 0.05). At crown delivery, 4/40 (test) and 12/40 (control) had no need of chairside adjustments, and 6/40 (test) and 5/40 (control) implant crowns were in need of additional laboratory interventions. CONCLUSION: The fabrication of posterior single implant crowns using digital impressions taken immediately after implant placement and a model-free, laboratory-based digital workflow was more time efficient and resulted in similar quality of outcomes as a hybrid workflow using conventional impressions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1288,'Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model-free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: A double-blind self-controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1289,'660-669');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1290,replace('Number: 7\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31038788','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1291,'10.1111/clr.13451');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1292,'OBJECTIVE: To histologically and radiographically evaluate soft (primary outcome) and hard tissue integration of two-piece titanium and zirconia dental implants with/without buccal dehiscence defects. MATERIALS & METHODS: In six dogs, five implants were randomly placed on both sides of the mandible: (a) Z1: a zirconia implant (modified surface) within the bony housing, (b) Z2: a zirconia implant (standard surface) within the bony housing, (c) T: a titanium implant within the bony housing, (d) Z1_D: a Z1 implant placed with a buccal bone dehiscence (3 mm in height, identical width to implant body), and (e) T_D: a titanium implant placed with a buccal bone dehiscence. Two weeks of healing and 6 months of loading were applied on each hemi-mandible, respectively. RESULTS: The median level of the margo mucosae shifted more apically over time in all groups (borderline statistical significance in groups Z1_D: -0.52 mm and T_D: -1.26 mm). The median height of the peri-implant mucosa in groups Z1_D and T_D was greatest at 2 weeks and 6 months, but the linear change in the peri-implant mucosa was statistically significant only for group T_D over time (-1.45 mm). Z1 demonstrated a higher bone-to-implant contact compared to Z2 and T. Minimal change of radiographic marginal bone levels in all groups was observed (<1 mm). CONCLUSION: When buccal dehiscence was presented, titanium implants presented significant loss of peri-implant mucosal height compared to zirconia implants with a modified surface, due to greater apical shift of the margo mucosae. A modified zirconia surface enhanced osseointegration.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1293,'Tissue integration of zirconia and titanium implants with and without buccal dehiscence defects-A histologic and radiographic preclinical study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1294,'257-260');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1295,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 21635558','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1296,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02221.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1297,'AIM: The purpose of the EAO summer camp was to create visions and ideas for future developments in the field of implant dentistry. An additional goal was the installation of a young, strong and enduring network for scientific exchange among participants. SUMMER CAMP ACTIVITY: Forty participants younger than 40 years of age, from 16 different European countries, discussed potential future developments of implant dentistry in a professionally moderated workshop. Participants worked in a competitive manner over 3 days in small teams on four topics: future teaching and education, surgery in 2030, prosthetics in 2030 and futuristic tissue development related to the field of implantology. Various innovative conference and moderation techniques were applied to achieve a maximum output from the creative potential present. RESULTS: Plenum consensus was obtained for several key factors potentially influencing future development in implant dentistry. In particular, teaching and education will be improved by the establishment of curriculum standards and novel teaching technologies. Surgery in 2030 will benefit from an improved cost-effectiveness of new technologies and biomaterials. A more comprehensive knowledge on host susceptibility will have an impact on treatment planning and the predictability of implant therapy. A virtual patient concept and tissue engineering will influence Prosthodontics in 2030. Futuristic tissue development will set a "platinum standard" for tissue regeneration. SUMMARY: Visions on all four topics were generated and discussed intensively during the conference. "Future teaching and education" was voted unanimously as the winning team based on the presented ideas and the special interest this topic generated.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1298,'EAO summer camp: a facilitated sharing experience.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1299,'182-192');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1300,'2018-06-00 2018 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1301,replace('Number: 3\nPMID: 29984048 \nPMCID: PMC6031763','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1302,'10.5051/jpis.2018.48.3.182');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1303,'PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to validate an experimental model for assessing tissue integration of titanium and zirconia implants with and without buccal dehiscence defects. METHODS: In 3 dogs, 5 implants were randomly placed on both sides of the mandibles: 1) Z1: a zirconia implant (modified surface) within the bony housing, 2) Z2: a zirconia implant (standard surface) within the bony housing, 3) T: a titanium implant within the bony housing, 4) Z1_D: a Z1 implant placed with a buccal bone dehiscence defect (3 mm), and 5) T_D: a titanium implant placed with a buccal bone dehiscence defect (3 mm). The healing times were 2 weeks (one side of the mandible) and 6 weeks (the opposite side). RESULTS: The dimensions of the peri-implant soft tissue varied depending on the implant and the healing time. The level of the mucosal margin was located more apically at 6 weeks than at 2 weeks in all groups, except group T. The presence of a buccal dehiscence defect did not result in a decrease in the overall soft tissue dimensions between 2 and 6 weeks (4.80±1.31 and 4.3 mm in group Z1_D, and 4.47±1.06 and 4.5±1.37 mm in group T_D, respectively). The bone-to-implant contact (BIC) values were highest in group Z1 at both time points (34.15%±21.23% at 2 weeks, 84.08%±1.33% at 6 weeks). The buccal dehiscence defects in groups Z1_D and T_D showed no further bone loss at 6 weeks compared to 2 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The modified surface of Z1 demonstrated higher BIC values than the surface of Z2. There were minimal differences in the mucosal margin between 2 and 6 weeks in the presence of a dehiscence defect. The present model can serve as a useful tool for studying peri-implant dehiscence defects at the hard and soft tissue levels.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1304,'Tissue integration of zirconia and titanium implants with and without buccal dehiscence defects.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1305,'1126-1133');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1306,replace('Number: 11\n3 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31444820','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1307,'10.1111/clr.13526');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1308,'OBJECTIVES: Compare clinical outcomes of two types of dental implants with non-matching implant-abutment junctions loaded with fixed implant-borne reconstructions at 5 years of loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 64 patients, one of two implant systems (S1, S2) was randomly used to support fixed dental prostheses (FDP). At loading (T(L) ), after 1 (T(1) ), 3 (T(3) ) and 5 years (T(5) ), the implant and reconstruction survival, biological and technical complications, radiographic marginal bone levels, clinical outcomes were recorded. The implants of the groups S1 and S2 contained of two-piece titanium implants with a non-matching implant-abutment junction. Data were analyzed on the patient level (1 implant/patient) using the non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: Ninety-seven implants were placed and loaded with fixed reconstructions in 64 patients. At T(5) , 29 S1 and 28 S2 implants were available for the patient-level analysis. Two implants in group S1 had to be removed in the same patient due to severe peri-implantitis, resulting in a survival rate of 96.1% on the implant level and 96.6% on the patient level. No implant in group S2 was lost. The technical complication rate on patient-level amounted of 24.2% (S1) and of 6.5% (S2) (p > .05). Biological complications on patient-level were observed in 15.2% (S1) and 16.1% (S2) (p > .05). From TL to T5, the medians of the mean marginal bone level changes wer a gain of 0.15 mm in group S1 and a loss of 0.14 mm in group S2 (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Both implant systems revealed high survival rates and minimal changes of the marginal bone levels during 5 years. Few biological complications occurred in both groups. S1 revealed a high rate of technical complications. Therefore, both implant systems can be recommended for fixed reconstructions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1309,'Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two types of two-piece dental implants supporting fixed reconstructions-Results at 5 years of loading.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1310,'1274-1284');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1311,replace('Number: 12\nPMID: 28766745 \nPMCID: PMC7209775','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1312,'10.1111/jcpe.12788');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1313,'AIM: To compare the microbiome of healthy (H) and diseased (P) peri-implant sites and determine the core peri-implant microbiome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Submucosal biofilms from 32 H and 35 P sites were analysed using 16S rRNA sequencing (MiSeq, Illumina), QIIME and HOMINGS. Differences between groups were determined using principal coordinate analysis (PCoA), t tests and Wilcoxon rank sum test and FDR-adjusted. The peri-implant core microbiome was determined. RESULTS: PCoA showed partitioning between H and P at all taxonomic levels. Bacteroidetes, Spirochetes and Synergistetes were higher in P, while Actinobacteria prevailed in H (p < .05). Porphyromonas and Treponema were more abundant in P while Rothia and Neisseria were higher in H (p < .05). The core peri-implant microbiome contained Fusobacterium, Parvimonas and Campylobacter sp. T. denticola, and P. gingivalis levels were higher in P, as well as F. alocis, F. fastidiosum and T. maltophilum (p < .05). CONCLUSION: The peri-implantitis microbiome is commensal-depleted and pathogen-enriched, harbouring traditional and new pathogens. The core peri-implant microbiome harbours taxa from genera often associated with periodontal inflammation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1314,'Exploring the microbiome of healthy and diseased peri-implant sites using Illumina sequencing.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1315,'3589-3599');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1316,replace('Number: 9\n4 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 30617661','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1317,'10.1007/s00784-018-2784-4');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1318,'OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether one of two synthetic bone substitute materials used for ridge preservation in the extraction sockets with buccal dehiscence defects was superior regarding new bone formation and ridge preservation and to compare it to sites left for spontaneous healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In sixteen dogs, P3 and P4 were hemi-sectioned and the respective distal roots were extracted. Following the preparation of a mucoperiosteal flap without vertical releasing incisions, 50% of the buccal bone was carefully removed. The extraction sites were randomly assigned either to a ridge preservation procedure (alloplastic bone substitute material (two test groups)) or to spontaneous healing (control group). Descriptive histology and histomorphometric analyses were performed at healing times of 4, 8, and 16 weeks. In case of homogeneous variances, the results were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey''s post-hoc test. If inhomogeneous, the data was analyzed using Welch-type ANOVA, followed by the Games-Howell post-hoc test. RESULTS: The use of bone substitute material led to significantly greater horizontal dimensions amounting to 3.3 mm (SD = 0.67; test 1) and 3.5 mm (SD = 0.72; test 2) compared to spontaneous healing (1.7 mm, SD = 0.23) at 16 weeks of healing (p < 0.0001). A significant difference was observed between spontaneous healing and the test groups in terms of newly formed bone tissue at 4, 8, and 16 weeks (p = 0.001), with values reaching 7.9, 21.8, and 36.8% (test 1), 5.0, 10.4, and 29% (test 2), and 26.2, 43.5, and 56.4% (control), but there were no significant differences between the test groups (p > 0.05). The final ridge profile was more favorable after ridge preservation (p < 0.001) as demonstrated by a loss of 28.8% (spontaneous healing) and an increase in both test groups at 16 weeks (test 1 = 60.5% and test 2 = 31.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of alloplastic materials rendered greater horizontal dimensions and a more favorable maintenance of the ridge profile. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alloplastic bone substitute materials can successfully be used for ridge preservation procedures.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1319,'Histologic analyses of flapless ridge preservation in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects using two alloplastic bone graft substitutes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1320,'29 Suppl 3');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1321,'226-31; discussion 232-233');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1322,'0303-6979');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1323,'2002-00-00 2002');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1324,replace('298 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 12787222','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1325,'10.1034/j.1600-051x.29.s3.14.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1326,'The aim of the present systematic review was to assess the survival of implants in regenerated bone applying the method of guided bone regeneration (GBR) compared with the survival of implants in non-regenerated bone. Studies to be included in this review needed to provide at least 12-month results following prosthetic reconstruction of titanium implants in bone regenerated by GBR with or without membrane supporting materials. The outcome measures were implant survival described as presence of implant, implant success (according to the criteria in the respective study), absence of clinical implant mobility, absence of implant fracture, absence of progressive peri-implant crestal bone loss as assessed on radiographs without clinical signs of peri-implant infection, absence of peri-implant infection with suppuration. A MEDLINE search and a hand search of relevant scientific journals were conducted including studies from the year 1990 to May 2001. A total of 11 studies could be identified fulfilling the inclusion criteria. All studies except two had the characteristics of case series or cross-sectional surveys. The two different studies had both test and control implants included in their analysis and qualified as controlled clinical trials. Cumulative success or survival rates, respectively, for implants in regenerated bone ranged from 100% after 5 years to 79.4% after 5 years of function. Regarding survival data, no significant differences were found in the controlled clinical trials between implants in regenerated compared to implants in non-regenerated bone. Within the limits of this systematic review characterized by second and third levels of evidence, the following conclusions can be drawn: The survival rate of implants placed into sites with regenerated/augmented bone using barrier membranes varied between 79% and 100% with the majority of studies indicating more than 90% after at least one year of function. The survival rates obtained in the present systematic review are similar to those generally reported for implants placed conventionally into sites without the need for bone augmentation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1327,'A systematic review of the survival of implants in bone sites augmented with barrier membranes (guided bone regeneration) in partially edentulous patients.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1328,'46');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1329,'373-381');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1330,'2019-03-00 2019 Mar');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1331,replace('Number: 3\n8 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 30710389','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1332,'10.1111/jcpe.13079');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1333,'AIM: To test the non-inferiority of demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared to DBBM with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) for maintenance of bone volume after tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-six patients were randomly treated with DBBM or DBBM-C, both of which were covered with a collagen matrix for ridge preservation in the anterior maxilla. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis was performed immediately and 4 months after treatment. The primary outcome, for which non-inferiority of DBBM was tested, was change in the horizontal ridge width 1 mm below the buccal alveolar crest (HW-1) 4 months after extraction. RESULTS: Four months after extraction, HW-1 measured -1.60 mm ± 0.82 mm for DBBM-C, while the DBBM group showed a mean loss of -1.37 mm ± 0.84 mm (p = 0.28, 0.23 [95% CI: -0.19; 0.64]). The horizontal ridge width at 3 mm (HW-3) showed -0.98 mm (±0.67 mm) for DBBM-C and -0.84 mm (±0.62 mm) for DBBM (p = 0.40, 0.12 [95% CI: -0.19; 0.45]), and the horizontal ridge width at 5 mm (HW-5) showed -0.67 mm (±0.47 mm) for DBBM-C and -0.56 mm (±0.48 mm) for DBBM (p = 0.36, 0.11 [95% CI: -0.13; 0.34]). CONCLUSIONS: The present clinical trial demonstrated non-inferiority of DBBM compared to DBBM-C for maintenance of alveolar bone volume 4 months after tooth extraction in the anterior maxilla.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1334,'Comparison between two bone substitutes for alveolar ridge preservation after tooth extraction: Cone-beam computed tomography results of a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1335,'© 2021 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1336,'721-733');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1337,'2021-05-00 2021 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1338,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 33278048','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1339,'10.1111/jcpe.13411');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1340,'OBJECTIVES: To analyse the soft tissue morphology under healthy and experimental mucositis conditions comparing zirconia and titanium implants. METHODS: Forty-two patients with two adjacent missing teeth received one zirconia (Zr) and one titanium (Ti) implant, with the mesial and distal position randomized. At 3 months, half of the patients were instructed to continue (healthy; h) and the other half to omit (experimental mucositis; m) oral hygiene around the implants for 3 weeks. Clinical parameters were evaluated before and after the experimental phase, and a soft tissue biopsy was harvested. Mixed model analyses were performed to analyse the data. RESULTS: The plaque control record increased significantly for the two mucositis groups, reaching 68.3 ± 31.9% (mean ± SD) for Zr-m and 75.0 ± 29.4% for Ti-m (p < .0001), being also significantly lower for Zr-m than for Ti-m. Bleeding on probing remained stable in group Zr-m and amounted to 21.7 ± 23.6%, but increased significantly in group Ti-m (p = .040), measuring 32.5 ± 27.8%. The number of inflammatory cells and the length of the junctional epithelium did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Both implants rendered similar outcomes under healthy conditions. Lower plaque and bleeding scores were detected for zirconia implants under experimental mucositis conditions. Histologically, only minimal differences were observed.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1341,'Clinical and histological comparison of the soft tissue morphology between zirconia and titanium dental implants under healthy and experimental mucositis conditions-A randomized controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1342,'735-744');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1343,'2019-08-00 2019 Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1344,replace('Number: 8\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31102476','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1345,'10.1111/clr.13457');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1346,'OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical, technical, and esthetic outcomes of veneered zirconia reconstructions cemented on non-original titanium bases over 1 year. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four healthy patients presented with one missing tooth in the anterior maxilla or mandible and received a two-piece dental implant. The implants were restored with a screw-retained crown using a directly veneered zirconia reconstruction, which was extraorally cemented on a titanium base. After crown insertion, patients were scheduled for a baseline examination and re-examined at 6 months and at 1 year of loading. Measurements included biological, technical, and esthetic parameters. Data were analyzed with nonparametric tests. RESULTS: Mean marginal bone levels measured 0.54 ± 0.39 mm (median: 0.47, range: 0.07-1.75 mm) at baseline and 0.54 ± 0.45 mm (median: 0.44, range: 0.06-1.52 mm) at 1 year. Mean probing depth (PD) (3.0 ± 0.6 mm at baseline to 3.5 ± 0.7 mm at 1 year [p = 0.002]), bleeding on probing (BOP) (27.1% ± 20.7% at baseline to 43.9% ± 28.0% at 1 year [p = 0.041]), plaque index (PI) (11.1% ± 21.2% at baseline to 18.2% ± 21.8% at 1 year [p = 0.381]) increased, whereas the width of the keratinized mucosa decreased from baseline to 1 year (3.1 ± 1.3 mm at baseline to 3.0 ± 1.2 mm at 1 year [p = 0.398]). Four implants (16.7%) were diagnosed with peri-implantitis (BOP positive, bone loss >1 mm) during the 1-year observation period. One implant was lost at 3 ½ months, resulting in a 95.8% survival rate. Four technical complications occurred and led to 83.3% complication-free reconstructions. CONCLUSION: A significant increase in PD and BOP values was observed using directly veneered zirconia reconstructions cemented on non-original titanium bases.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1347,'Veneered zirconia abutments cemented on non-original titanium bases: 1-year results of a prospective case series.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1348,'466-475');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1349,'2019-05-00 2019 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1350,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 30972828','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1351,'10.1111/clr.13433');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1352,'OBJECTIVES: To assess survival/success rates and patient-reported outcome of zirconia-based posterior single crowns (SCs) supported by zirconia implants in a prospective two-center study after five years of observation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-five patients were restored with 45 zirconia implant-supported posterior SCs composed of zirconia frameworks hand-layered with a leucite-reinforced feldspathic ceramic. Survival rates of SCs were assessed and technical success was evaluated according to modified United States Public Health Care (USPHS) criteria. Furthermore, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed by applying visual analog scales (VAS). Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, mixed-effects ordered logistic regression, and linear mixed models were used to evaluate time effects on response variables. RESULTS: Forty patients were available after a mean observation period of 61.0 ± 1.4 months. One SC had to be replaced, resulting in a Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimate for the SCs of 97.5 ± 2.47%. Since nine reconstructions showed at least in one category a major deviation from the ideal (five major chippings, four with increased occlusal roughness, one significant crevice, and one pronounced over-contouring), the KM success estimate was 79.3 ± 5.8%. Incidence of chipping (n = 19) and occlusal roughness (n = 35) was frequent (p < 0.001). All PROMs at prosthetic delivery except for speech (p = 0.139) showed significantly improved VAS scores (81%-94%; p < 0.001) compared to pre-treatment evaluations. Thereafter, no decrease in satisfaction could be observed until the 5-year follow-up (93%-97%). CONCLUSION: Veneered zirconia-based SCs supported by zirconia implants showed high survival rates and highly satisfied patients'' needs. However, significant incidence of technical complications is compromising the clinical long-term outcome for this indication.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1353,'All-ceramic single crowns supported by zirconia implants: 5-year results of a prospective multicenter study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1354,'© 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1355,'29 Suppl 15');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1356,'11-13');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1357,'2018-03-00 2018 Mar');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1358,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 29498125','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1359,'10.1111/clr.13109');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1360,'OBJECTIVES: One task of Working Group 1 at the 2nd Consensus Meeting of the Osteology Foundation was to comprehensively assess the effects of hard tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of hard tissue augmentation procedures included a total of eight studies (n = 12 publications). Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were based on structured group discussions and plenary session approval. RESULTS: After 1-10 years of follow- up, lateral bone augmentation procedures were associated with peri-implant tissue stability, as evidenced by minimal and non-significant changes in bleeding on probing, probing depth, and marginal bone levels. Case definitions based on clinical and radiographic parameters to differentiate peri-implant health from disease have been inconsistently employed in the studies investigated. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral bone augmentation procedures are associated with peri-implant tissue stability on short-term (1-3 years) and midterm follow-ups to long-term (>3 years) follow-ups.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1361,'Evidence-based knowledge on the aesthetics and maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues: Osteology Foundation Consensus Report Part 2-Effects of hard tissue augmentation procedures on the maintenance of peri-implant tissues.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1362,'777-783');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1363,'2016-12-00 2016 Nov/Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1364,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 27922642','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1365,'10.11607/prd.2937');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1366,'The aim of the present study was to assess the threshold values for color changes on the level of the tooth separately for laypeople, dentists, and dental technicians. Standardized presentations were made of five cases (maxilla, left to right lateral incisors) with the gingiva and teeth separated. The color parameters L (lightness), a, and b (chroma) (CIE L*a*b* parameters) of the tooth layers were adjusted to induce darker and lighter colors. In the presentations, the left part of the pictures (maxillary right central and lateral incisors) was unchanged, whereas the right part was modified. A group of 10 dentists, 10 dental technicians, and 10 laypeople evaluated the color differences between the pictures. The median threshold values were 1.8 (laypeople), 1.8 (dental technicians), and 1.9 (dentists). The overall ΔE amounted to 1.8.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1367,'Threshold Values for the Perception of Color Changes in Human Teeth.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1368,'39-45');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1369,'2016-02-00 2016 Jan-Feb');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1370,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 26697552','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1371,'10.11607/prd.2663');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1372,'The aim of the present study was to assess the discoloration of the peri-implant mucosa caused by zirconia (Zr) and titanium (Ti) dental implants with and without soft tissue grafting (STG). Zr and Ti implants were inserted in edentulous areas in pig maxillae. Spectrophotometric measurements were performed prior to and after the insertion of the implants, and following the placement of a STG on the buccal side. A significant discoloration of the mucosa was observed with a mean ΔE of 8.05 (± 2.51) (Ti) and 4.93 (± 3.18) (Zr). In conjunction with a STG, ΔE values amounted to 5.31 ± 3.50 (Ti) and 5.95 (± 3.68) (Zr). The placement of Zr implants led to less discoloration of the mucosa than Ti implants without STG.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1373,'Discoloration of the Peri-implant Mucosa Caused by Zirconia and Titanium Implants.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1374,'481-488');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1375,'2019-04-00 2019 Mar/Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1376,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 30883624','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1377,'10.11607/jomi.6980');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1378,'PURPOSE: This cohort study evaluated patient satisfaction for maxillary implant-retained overdentures (IODs) on two implants up to 4 years and assessed the treatment effect over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients encountering problems with their conventional dentures were included and received maxillary IODs on two titanium-zirconium implants and ball anchors in the canine area. Patient satisfaction was assessed using the oral health impact profile (OHIP-20E) questionnaires both for dentures and IODs. Two months after insertion of IODs (baseline), the patients chose the preferred overdenture design with full or reduced palatal coverage. OHIP-20E questionnaires were followed according to the individual choice at 1 and 4 years, and outcomes were compared with baseline. RESULTS: Sixteen out of 21 patients were evaluated at a mean follow-up of 4 years (range: 2.4 to 4.8 years). There was no significant difference in the OHIP domains for IODs at 1 year (OHIP_(total)_(1y): 9.5, SD: 13.0) and 4 years (OHIP_(total)_(4y): 14.2, SD: 19.1) compared with baseline (OHIP_(total)_(BL): 12.4, SD: 14.7). Patients were most satisfied with social disability both for IODs (OHIP_(BL): 6.0, SD: 7.6; OHIP_(1y): 3.4, SD: 5.4; OHIP_(4y): 5.7, SD: 9.5) and dentures (OHIP_(CD)_(old): 28, SD: 29.7; OHIP_(CD)_(new): 25.4, SD: 28.67). Patients were least satisfied with functional limitation both for IODs (OHIP_(BL): 6.0, SD: 7.6; OHIP_(1y): 3.4, SD: 5.4; OHIP_(4y): 5.7, SD: 9.5) and dentures (OHIP_(CD)_(old): 28, SD: 29.7; OHIP_(CD)_(new): 25.4, SD: 28.67). CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with maxillary IODs on two implants did not change from baseline to 4 years and was high at 4 years of function.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1379,'Patient-Reported Outcomes of Maxillary Edentulous Patients Wearing Overdentures Retained by Two Implants from Insertion to 4 Years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1380,'656-661');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1381,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 26354174','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1382,'10.1111/clr.12690');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1383,'OBJECTIVES: The microbial composition of peri-implantitis-associated biofilms may resemble that of periodontitis, with some distinctive differences, as identified by various conventional or molecular detection methods. Yet, the complete microbiome of peri-implantitis awaits further characterization. The present clinical study was undertaken with the aim to investigate the association of Spirochaetes, and the more recently identified phylum Synergistetes, with peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Submucosal biofilms were obtained from single sites of patients with peri-implantitis (n = 43) or individuals with peri-implant health (n = 41). The samples were analysed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) and epifluorescence microscopy, using 16S rRNA-based oligonucleotide probes for Synergistetes cluster A, subclusters A1 and A2, and Treponema groups I-III and IV. RESULTS: Treponema group IV was barely detectable, whereas Treponema groups I-III were detected at low prevalence in health, but their prevalence and numbers were significantly increased in peri-implantitis by 48% and 2.4-log, respectively. Synergistetes cluster A was detected in half of the healthy sites, and its prevalence and numbers were significantly increased in peri-implantitis by 30% and 2.5-log, respectively. No quantitative differences were found between Synergistetes subclusters A1 and A2 numbers, as both increased by 2.8-log. Synergistetes cluster A displayed strong correlations with several clinical peri-implant parameters, but Treponema groups I-III only with probing pocket depth. CONCLUSION: The present clinical cross-sectional study demonstrates that Spriochaetes of the Treponema groups I-III, but not group IV, and Synergistetes of the cluster A are highly associated with peri-implantitis. Synergistetes cluster A appears to display a stronger association with peri-implantitis than Spirochaetes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1384,'Clinical association of Spirochaetes and Synergistetes with peri-implantitis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1385,'47');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1386,'64-71');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1387,'2020-01-00 2020 Jan');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1388,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 31518443','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1389,'10.1111/jcpe.13194');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1390,'AIM: To investigate the effect of three treatment modalities on the gain of keratinized tissue (KT) at tooth and implant sites in dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In five dogs, the distal roots of the mandibular second, third and fourth premolars were extracted, while the mesial roots were maintained. After 2 months of healing, implants were placed with KT excision. After another 2 months of healing, free gingival grafts, collagen-based matrices and apically positioned flap only were applied. The height of KT was measured during implant placement, immediately before soft-tissue grafting and after 10, 30 and 60 days. RESULTS: Two months after KT excision, spontaneous KT regrowth was greater at tooth sites than at implant sites (median, 2.0 mm vs. 1.1 mm). The outcomes of soft-tissue grafting at implant sites favoured the free gingival graft treatment, with a greater final median height (5.0-5.5 mm) and increase in KT (4.0-4.2 mm). Locations of the recipient sites significantly influenced KT regeneration at both tooth and implant sites. CONCLUSIONS: At implant sites, the free gingival graft treatment led to higher KT regeneration. At tooth sites, however, the differences between the three treatment modalities seemed clinically irrelevant.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1391,'Augmentation of keratinized tissue at tooth and implant sites by using autogenous grafts and collagen-based soft-tissue substitutes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1392,'46 Suppl 21');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1393,'257-276');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1394,replace('Place: United States\nPMID: 30675733','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1395,'10.1111/jcpe.13050');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1396,'OBJECTIVES: To analyse the evidence regarding the efficacy of lateral bone augmentation procedures in terms of defect resolution in cases of horizontal ridge deficiencies after implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Included studies met the following inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs), re-entry procedure to assess defect resolution, minimum of 10 patients (5 per group). Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible, including subgroup analysis based on membranes and grafting materials. RESULTS: Twenty-eight publications (20 short-term, 8 follow-up studies) were included. The most often used type of intervention was a xenogeneic particulated grafting material (XE) and a resorbable collagen membrane (CM). The mean defect height at baseline amounted to 5.1 mm (range 2.4-7.8) and decreased to a mean of 0.9 mm (range 0.2-2.2) at re-entry, and the mean defect resolution was 81.3% (range 56.4%-97.1%). Defect height reduction was not significantly different using CM+XE as control treatment compared to the combined data of the respective test groups [n = 11; weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.006 mm; 95% CI, -0.61, 0.60; p = 0.985]. The absence of any lateral bone augmentation was less favourable than the conjunction of a membrane and a bone grafting material (n = 1; MD = -1.96 mm; 95% CI, -3.48, -0.44; p = 0.011). The lack of a grafting material was less favourable than the conjunction of grafting material and membrane (n = 1; MD = -2.44 mm; 95% CI, -4.53, -0.35; p = 0.022), and the addition of a membrane compared to a grafting material alone was more favourable (n = 3; WMD = 0.97 mm; 95% CI, 0.31, 1.64; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Lateral bone augmentation is a successful treatment modality. For optimal defect height reduction, a barrier membrane and a grafting material should be combined.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1397,'Efficacy of lateral bone augmentation performed simultaneously with dental implant placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1398,'14-17');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1399,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 29498131','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1400,'10.1111/clr.13113');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1401,'OBJECTIVES: Working Group 2 at the 2nd Consensus Meeting of the Osteology Foundation had a focus on the influence of vertical implant placement on papilla height at single implants adjacent to teeth and on the inter-implant mucosa fill at two adjacent implants in the anterior maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the consensus meeting. Due to the heterogeneity among the studies with regard to study design, study population, method of assessment, meta-analyses were not possible. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert group. RESULTS: The systematic review about single-tooth implants included a total of 12 studies demonstrating that the vertical distance from the crestal bone level to the base of the interproximal contact point varied considerably from 2 mm up to 11 mm, and a partial or complete papilla fill was reached in 56.5% to 100% of the cases. For the systematic review regarding two adjacent implants, only four studies reported on horizontal inter-implant distances which ranged between 2.0 and 4.0 mm. More than half of the papilla presence was indicated in 21% to 88.5% of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that for single-tooth implants, the papilla height between an implant and a tooth is predominantly dependent on the clinical attachment level of the tooth. In cases with two adjacent implants, it was concluded that it is not possible to define the optimal horizontal distance between two adjacent implants restored with fixed dental prosthess.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1402,'Evidence-based knowledge on the aesthetics and maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues: Osteology Foundation Consensus Report Part 3-Aesthetics of peri-implant soft tissues.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1403,'119-130');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1404,replace('Number: 2\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 18067597','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1405,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01453.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1406,'OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the 5-year survival of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological and technical complications. METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify prospective and retrospective cohort studies on SCs with a mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson''s regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies from an initial yield of 3601 titles were finally selected and data were extracted. In a meta-analysis of these studies, survival of implants supporting SCs was 96.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 95.9-97.6%] after 5 years. The survival rate of SCs supported by implants was 94.5% (95% CI: 92.5-95.9%) after 5 years of function. The survival rate of metal-ceramic crowns, 95.4% (95% CI: 93.6-96.7%), was significantly (P=0.005) higher than the survival rate, 91.2% (95% CI: 86.8-94.2%), of all-ceramic crowns. Peri-implantitis and soft tissue complications occurred adjacent to 9.7% of the SCs and 6.3% of the implants had bone loss exceeding 2 mm over the 5-year observation period. The cumulative incidence of implant fractures after 5 years was 0.14%. After 5 years, the cumulative incidence of screw or abutment loosening was 12.7% and 0.35% for screw or abutment fracture. For supra-structure-related complications, the cumulative incidence of ceramic or veneer fractures was 4.5%. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that after an observation period of 5 years, high survival rates for implants and implant-supported SCs can be expected. However, biological and particularly technical complications are frequent.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1407,'A systematic review of the 5-year survival and complication rates of implant-supported single crowns.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1408,'© 2020 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1409,'1105-1115');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1410,'2020-11-00 2020 Nov');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1411,replace('Number: 11\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 32875638','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1412,'10.1111/clr.13657');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1413,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present randomized, controlled clinical multicenter trial was to compare a polyethylene glycol (PEG) and a native collagen membrane (BG) for simultaneous guided bone regeneration at bony dehiscence-type defects around bone level titanium implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study enrolled 117 patients requiring implant treatment in the posterior maxilla or mandible with expected buccal bony dehiscence-type defects at the placed titanium implants. According to a parallel groups design, defects were filled with a synthetic bone filler and randomly assigned to either PEG or BG membrane. As primary parameter, the relative vertical bone fill was assessed at baseline and at re-entry after 6 months of healing. As secondary parameters, the marginal bone level (MBL) was assessed radiographically and soft tissue conditions were recorded up to 18 months postloading. RESULTS: Both groups showed comparable vertical bone fill revealing a relative change in defect height of 59.7% (PEG) and 64.4% (BG). The absolute mean reduction in defect size was 2.5 mm in the PEG group and 3.2 mm in the BG group. Although both groups revealed a statistically significant mean defect reduction (p < .001), a comparison between the two groups did not show statistical significances. The non-inferiority test with inferiority limit of -5% could not be rejected, based on the 90% confidence interval of the differences of the two means with lower limit -15.4%. After 18 months, an MBL increase of 0.45 ± 0.43 mm in the PEG group and 0.41 ± 0.81 mm in the BG group was detected (p < .001). Soft tissue complications were observed in both groups without showing statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Both membranes supported bone regeneration at dehiscence-type defects and obtained vertical bone fill with a relative change in defect height of 59.7% (PEG) and 64.4% (BG); however, the non-inferiority of PEG could not be shown.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1414,'Comparison of a polyethylene glycol membrane and a collagen membrane for the treatment of bone dehiscence defects at bone level implants-A prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1415,'39 Suppl 12');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1416,'37-62');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1417,replace('Place: United States\nPMID: 22533946','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1418,'10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01833.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1419,'OBJECTIVE: The aim was to systematically search the dental literature for pre-clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites (part 1) and systemically compromised animals (part 2), and to evaluate the quality of reporting of included publications. METHODS: A Medline search (1966-2011) was performed, complimented by additional hand searching. The quality of reporting of the included publications was evaluated using the 20 items of the ARRIVE (Animals in Research In Vivo Experiments) guidelines. RESULTS: One-hundred and seventy-six (part 1; mean ARRIVE score = 15.6 ± 2.4) and 104 (part 2; 16.2 ± 1.9) studies met the inclusion criteria. The overall mean score for all included studies amounted to 15.8 ± 2.2. Housing (38.3%), allocation of animals (37.9%), numbers analysed (50%) and adverse events (51.4%) of the ARRIVE guidelines were the least reported. Statistically significant differences in mean ARRIVE scores were found depending on the publication date (p < 0.05), with the highest score of 16.7 ± 1.6 for studies published within the last 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of studies met the inclusion criteria. The ARRIVE scores revealed heterogeneity and missing information for selected items in more than 50% of the publications. The quality of reporting shifted towards better-reported pre-clinical trials within recent years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1420,'Systematic review of pre-clinical models assessing implant integration in locally compromised sites and/or systemically compromised animals.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1421,'856-864');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1422,'2020-09-00 2020 Sep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1423,replace('Number: 9\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 32562324','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1424,'10.1111/clr.13631');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1425,'OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical performance of monolithic zirconia implant crowns as compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) implant crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-six healthy patients received reduced diameter implants in the molar region. Following random allocation, either a monolithic zirconia crown (Mono-ZrO(2) ) or a (PFM) was inserted. Crown and implant survival rates, modified USPHS criteria, clinical measurements, and interproximal marginal bone level (MBL) were assessed at crown delivery (baseline, BL) and at the 1-year follow-up (1y-FU). Data were analyzed descriptively. Fisher''s exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were applied for statistical analysis. The level of statistical significance was set at p < .05. RESULTS: Thirty-nine Mono-ZrO(2) and 37 PFM crowns were delivered. At the 1y-FU, one crown in each group was lost due to loss of the implant. Technical complications occurred in the PFM group and were limited to four minor ceramic chippings resulting in a total technical complication rate of 11.1% (p = .024). Anatomical form and color match compared to the adjacent dentition were rated significantly inferior for the Mono-ZrO(2) crowns. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups at BL (34 Mono-ZrO(2) 34 PFM) and at 1y-FU (36 Mono-ZrO(2) 31 PFM). No significant differences between the groups were detected with respect to the change in MBL and to the soft tissue parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Monolithic zirconia crowns are a similarly successful alternative option to PFM crowns for restoring single implants in the posterior area.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1426,'Prosthetic outcomes and clinical performance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia versus porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns in the molar region: 1-year results of a RCT.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1427,'2020-08-10 2020 Aug 10');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1428,replace('Number: 8\nPMID: 32784997 \nPMCID: PMC7464084','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1429,'10.3390/jcm9082583');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1430,'BACKGROUND: To assess the soft tissue dimension following tooth extraction and alveolar ridge preservation in the posterior maxilla compared to spontaneous healing. METHODS: Thirty-five patients randomly assigned to alveolar ridge preservation (ARP) and spontaneous healing (SH) after maxillary molar extraction. The crestal, buccal, and palatal gingival thickness at 6 months was measured around virtually placed implant fixtures using superimposed cone-beam computed tomography and intraoral scan taken at 6 months. Buccal mucogingival junction (MGJ) level change over 6 months was estimated using intraoral scans obtained at suture-removal and 6 months. RESULTS: The crestal gingiva was significantly thinner in group ARP (-1.16 mm) compared to group SH (p < 0.05). The buccal and palatal gingiva was significantly thinner at the implant shoulder (IS) level in group ARP (buccal: -0.75 mm; palatal: -0.85 mm) compared to group SH (p < 0.05). The thickness at 2 mm below the IS of both sides and the buccal MGJ level change were similar in both groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ARP in the posterior maxilla resulted in a thinner soft tissue on top of and at the prospective level of the implant shoulder at 6 months. The buccal MGJ level changed minimal for 6 months in both groups.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1431,'Soft Tissue Dimensions Following Tooth Extraction in the Posterior Maxilla: A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Alveolar Ridge Preservation to Spontaneous Healing.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1432,'129');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1433,'700-707');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1434,'Swiss dental journal');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1435,'2296-6498');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1436,'2019-09-09 2019 Sep 9');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1437,replace('Number: 9\nPlace: Switzerland\nPMID: 31169009','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1438,'Swiss Dent J');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1439,'The aim of this cross-sectional survey was to identify the extent of digital technology infiltrating dental practices for the management and the treatment of patients. A survey (68 questions) was mailed to all members of the Swiss Dental Association (SSO). An online as well as postal answer was offered in order to maximise the response rate. The survey was mailed in June 2016 and answers were collected till the end of 2016. The total number of completed surveys was 1,238, which resulted in a response rate of 40%. Most dentists (97%) owned a private computer device and 74% used it for both, private and professional life. 69% of the dental offices had a homepage (69%), whereas a limited number (10%) used social media. The location of the practice influenced the extent of online presence. For patient administration a software application was used in 95% of the practices. The management of appointments was mainly organized by a digital agenda (73%). Patient’s dental history was recorded digitally in half of the practices (53%), whereas in one third (38%) also dental/ endodontic/periodontal charts were recorded digitally. One quarter of the dentists (24%) used an additional dental software for patient treatment/ planning other than the administration software. In 23% of the dental practices a chairside CAD/CAM system was available. The survey demonstrated that i) the younger the dentist, ii) the more recent the opening of the practice, iii) the greater the patient catchment area, and iv) the more treatment rooms, the higher the grade of digitalisation of the dental practice.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1440,'The use of digital technologies in dental practices in Switzerland: a cross-sectional survey.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1441,'8 Suppl');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1442,'255-281');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1443,'2008-09-00 2008 Sep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1444,replace('Number: 8 Suppl\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 18724854','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1445,'10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01270.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1446,'OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the literature regarding the clinical, histological, and radiographic outcome of bone morphogenetic proteins (BMP-2, BMP-7), growth/differentiation factor-5 (GDF-5), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and parathyroid hormone (PTH) for localized alveolar ridge augmentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five separate Medline searches were performed in duplicate for human and animal studies, respectively. The primary outcome of the included studies was bone regeneration of localized alveolar ridge defects or craniofacial defects. RESULTS: In six human studies, BMP-2 affected local bone augmentation with increasing volume for higher doses. A majority (43 of 45) of animal studies using BMP-2 showed a positive effect in favour of the growth factor (GF). In six of eight studies, a positive effect was associated with the use of BMP-7. Only one animal study was included for GDF-5 revealing statistically significantly higher bone volume. Regarding PDGF, statistically significantly higher bone volume was observed in five of 10 included studies. Four animal studies using PTH revealed statistically significantly more bone regeneration compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Differing levels and quantity of evidence were noted to be available for the GFs evaluated, revealing that BMP-2, BMP-7, GDF-5, PDGF, and PTH may stimulate local bone augmentation to various degrees. Human data for the potential of rhBMP-2 are supportive.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1447,'Assessment of the potential of growth factors for localized alveolar ridge augmentation: a systematic review.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1448,'517-525');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1449,'2020-06-00 2020 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1450,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 32011015','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1451,'10.1111/clr.13588');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1452,'AIM: To test whether or not buccal vertical bone dehiscences (≤5 mm) around posterior implants left for spontaneous healing (SH) result in the same clinical and radiologic outcome as dehiscences treated with guided bone regeneration (GBR) at 7.5 years after implant placement (IMPL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients receiving 28 posterior implants with a small non-contained buccal bone dehiscence (≤5 mm) were randomly assigned to the SH or the GBR group. Implants were loaded at 6 months. Clinical parameters (probing depths, sulcus bleeding index, plaque index) and approximal marginal radiographic bone levels were assessed regularly up to at least 6.8 years. The vertical extension of the dehiscences was measured clinically at IMPL and abutment connection and radiographically on cone beam computed tomographys at a mean follow-up time of 7.5 years. RESULTS: Twenty patients with a total of 26 implants were recalled at 7.5 years (9.1% dropout). The implant/crown survival rates were 100% in both groups. Stable peri-implant tissues were observed in both groups showing only minimal signs of inflammation. During the entire study period (IMPL-7.5-year follow-up), the median buccal vertical bone gain measured 1.61 mm for the GBR group and 0.62 for the SH group showing no significant difference between the groups. Also, at 7.5 years, the median approximal marginal bone levels (GBR: 0.53; SH: 0.68) were not significantly different between the two groups (p = .61) while the remaining median buccal vertical dehiscences were larger in the SH group (2.51 mm) compared to the GBR group (1.66 mm; p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Implants with small non-contained buccal bone dehiscences exhibited high implant survival rates and healthy peri-implant tissues at 7.5 years. In the GBR group, the buccal vertical bone levels were higher compared to the SH group but remained stable over the entire study period for both treatments.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1453,'Long-term clinical and radiographic results after treatment or no treatment of small buccal bone dehiscences at posterior dental implants: A randomized, controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1454,'488-494');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1455,'2020-05-00 2020 May');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1456,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 32003872','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1457,'10.1111/clr.13584');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1458,'OBJECTIVE: To follow-up the radiographic changes in peri-implant bone of short (6 mm, test group) and long (10 mm, control group) single-unit implants five years after loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three implants of the test and 44 implants of the control group could be reassessed from 96 originally included implants. Standardized areas of interest (AOI) were defined in the peri-implant bone at pre-defined locations at mid-length on both sides of the implants, and at the apex. An arbitrary mean grey scale value (GSV) was calculated for the AOI after brightness calibration of the radiographs. Changes for GSV were calculated and tested for possible inter- and intra-group differences using the Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon tests. RESULTS: The calculated intra-group differences between baseline and 5 years in the test group accounted for 2.4 ± 19.6 (i.e. slight brightening) and -6.2 ± 20.2 for the control group (i.e. slight shading), which resulted in a statistically significant difference in GSV change (p < .05). Crown-to-implant ratio was the only parameter showing an effect on GSV change (p = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Assessing conventional radiographs, longer implants showed a slightly stronger change of radiopacity of the peri-implant bone (slight loss of density) than short ones (slightly enhanced density) after five years of loading.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1459,'Changes of radiopacity around implants of different lengths: Five-year follow-up data of a randomized clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1460,'565-574');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1461,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 32128884','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1462,'10.1111/clr.13594');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1463,'OBJECTIVES: To compare two ridge preservation techniques and spontaneous healing in terms of soft tissue thickness, contour changes, and soft tissue handling two months after tooth extraction. METHODS: Thirty-six patients were included with buccal bone plate dehiscences of up to 50% after single-tooth extraction in the esthetic zone. They were randomly assigned to receive one of three procedures: a deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) covered with a collagen matrix (DBBM-C/CM), DBBM-C alone, or spontaneous healing (SH). Two months later, the status of soft tissue healing was assessed, and the thickness of the mucosa was measured at the center of the site. Thereafter, implants were placed and the need for further guided bone regeneration (GBR) to cover exposed implant surfaces was assessed. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were evaluated at the day of implant placement. An invagination of the soft tissues was recorded in 41.7% (n = 12), 53.8% (n = 13), and 90.9% (n = 11) of the sites in groups DBBM-C/CM, DBBM-C, and SH, respectively. The median thickness of the mucosa measured was 3.0 mm in group DBBM-C/CM, 2.1 mm in group DBBM-C, and 1.5 mm in group SH. Additional GBR was necessary in 66.7% (n = 12), 53.8% (n = 13), and 90.9% (n = 11) of the sites in groups DBBM-C/CM, DBBM-C, and SH, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The present explorative study revealed slight tendencies for more favorable soft tissue conditions with less invaginations as well as increased soft tissue volume and thickness in groups having received an alveolar ridge preservation procedure compared to spontaneously healed sites at 8 weeks of healing.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1464,'Explorative randomized controlled study comparing soft tissue thickness, contour changes, and soft tissue handling of two ridge preservation techniques and spontaneous healing two months after tooth extraction.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1465,'294-301');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1466,'2020-03-00 2020 Mar');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1467,replace('Number: 3\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31886909','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1468,'10.1111/clr.13570');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1469,'OBJECTIVES: To test the non-inferiority of demineralized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) compared to demineralized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen (DBBM-C) for the maintenance of the soft tissue contour after tooth extraction in the esthetic zone. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-five patients randomly received ridge preservation at a single site in the anterior maxilla with DBBM or DBBM-C. Both, DBBM and DBBM-C, were covered with a collagen matrix. Profilometric analyses were performed at baseline (BL), immediately after treatment (PO), and at 4 months (FU; day of implant placement). The main outcome was the horizontal mean change (HC) at the buccal aspect. The measurements also included changes of the estimated soft tissue thickness (eTT) at 1, 3, and 5 mm below the buccal gingival margin. Descriptive analysis was performed, and differences between groups were analyzed using independent samples t test. The non-inferiority test was performed for HC. RESULTS: At 4 months, the horizontal mean change (HC) was -1.43 mm (±0.53 mm) (DBBM-C) and -1.32 mm (±0.53 mm) (DBBM). Change of the estimated soft tissue thickness (eTT) between baseline (BL) and four months of follow-up (FU) at 1, 3, and 5 mm amounted to -4.58 mm (±2.02 mm), -2.40 mm (±0.97 mm), and -1.37 mm (±0.78 mm) for DBBM-C and to -4.12 mm (±1.80 mm), -2.09 mm (±0.91 mm), and -1.23 mm (±0.72 mm) for DBBM. The differences between the groups were not statistically significantly for any of the outcome measures (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: DBBM is non-inferior to DBBM-C for the maintenance of the soft tissue contour 4 months after tooth extraction.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1470,'Deproteinized bovine bone mineral is non-inferior to deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen in maintaining the soft tissue contour post-extraction: A randomized trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1471,'1005-1012');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1472,'2020-10-00 2020 Sep/Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1473,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32991652','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1474,'10.11607/jomi.8211');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1475,'PURPOSE: To clinically and histomorphometrically compare a biphasic calcium phosphate (BCP) and deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) for sinus floor elevation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sinus floor elevation procedures (lateral window) were performed randomly applying either BCP (test) or DBBM (control). At 6 months, bone biopsy specimens were harvested and dental implants were placed. The proportions of new bone, residual grafting material, and nonmineralized soft tissue were calculated. Four months after implant placement, the prosthetic reconstructions were inserted and the implant survival was assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were treated; 25 were randomly allocated to the BCP group and 26 to the DBBM group. After 6 months in 50 patients, bone biopsy specimens could be harvested, and a total of 121 implants could be placed subsequently. The histomorphometric analysis revealed a comparable percentage of new bone in both groups (BCP 35.9%, DBBM 35.4%; P > .05). The remaining grafting material was significantly lower with BCP (25.3%) compared with DBBM (45.9%; P < .001). Nonmineralized tissue was significantly higher for the BCP group (38.1%) compared with the DBBM group (18.2%; P < .001). The implant survival rate at loading was assessed at the level of the patients (96.0% for BCP and 88.8% for DBBM; P > .05) and at the level of the implants (96.9% for BCP and 94.7% for DBBM; P > .05). CONCLUSION: Grafting with DBBM or BCP showed similar percentages of new bone 6 months after sinus floor elevation. Implant survival presented no significant difference until loading.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1476,'Sinus Floor Elevation with Biphasic Calcium Phosphate or Deproteinized Bovine Bone Mineral: Clinical and Histomorphometric Outcomes of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1477,'© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Periodontology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Academy of Periodontology.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1478,'92');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1479,'553-561');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1480,'2021-04-00 2021 Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1481,replace('Number: 4\nPMID: 32918332 \nPMCID: PMC8246894','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1482,'10.1002/JPER.20-0217');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1483,'BACKGROUND: Connective tissue grafting has a beneficial effect on the peri-implant mucosa, but the effect of grafting the buccal mucosa on buccal bone thickness (BBT) has not been investigated, although BBT is proposed to be a key factor for the soft-tissue contour. The aim of this trial was to assess the outcome of a connective tissue graft (CTG) in the esthetic zone of single immediate implants on the change of BBT according to cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan analysis. METHODS: In a 1-year randomized controlled trial, 60 patients received an immediately placed implant and provisionalization, either combined with CTG (test group) or without CTG (control group). CBCTs were taken preoperatively (T(pre) ) and 1 year after definitive restoration (T(2) ). Any change in BBT was assessed at different implant levels. Additionally, the change in mid-buccal mucosal level (MBML) and approximal marginal bone level were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were available for statistical analysis (test group, n = 28; control group, n = 27). At T(2) , the average change in BBT was significantly larger in the test group (-0.84 ± 0.61 mm) than in the control group (-0.46 ± 0.54 mm, P = 0.02). A MBML gain of 0.07 ± 0.85 mm in the test and a MBML loss -0.52 ± 1.16 mm in the control group was observed at T(2) . Average loss of marginal bone was 0.05 ± 0.33 mm and 0.01 ± 0.38 mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The application of CTG in the esthetic zone of immediately placed and provisionalized implants is accompanied with more loss of BBT, but at the same time better maintains the mid-buccal mucosal level.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1484,'Effect of connective tissue grafting on buccal bone changes based on cone beam computed tomography scans in the esthetic zone of single immediate implants: A 1-year randomized controlled trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1485,'303-314');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1486,'2020-04-00 2020 Apr');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1487,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31867781','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1488,'10.1111/clr.13566');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1489,'OBJECTIVES: To observe the sequential healing of lateral onlay grafts in terms of volumetric and histological changes when using different combinations of synthetic soft-type block bone and resorbable collagen membranes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A lateral onlay graft procedure was applied at the chronic narrow alveolar ridge of the mandible in 15 beagle dogs. The groups were allocated as follows: (a) empty control; (b) onlay graft using soft-type block bone 1 (hydroxyapatite [HA]: β-tricalcium phosphate [β-TCP] = 15:85) and a non-cross-linked collagen membrane (MP-BG group); (c) onlay graft using soft-type block bone 2 (HA:β-TCP = 60:40) and a non-cross-linked collagen membrane (OC-BG group); and (d) onlay graft using soft-type block bone 1 (HA:β-TCP = 15:85) and a cross-linked collagen membrane (MP-CM group). Volumetric and histomorphometric analyses were performed at 4, 8 and 16 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: No clinical complications occurred in any of the groups. The OC-BG group showed significantly larger total augmented volumes than the control and MP-BG groups after 8 and 16 weeks. The areas of new bone were significantly larger in the OC-BG group than the other groups at 16 weeks. The horizontal thickness of the augmented ridge was significantly larger in the OC-BG group than in the control group at 16 weeks. CONCLUSION: The OC-BG group showed superior volume maintenance and osteogenic potential for up to 16 weeks compared to the other groups in an onlay graft model of the dog mandible despite the displacement of the bone graft.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1490,'Lateral onlay grafting using different combinations of soft-type synthetic block grafts and resorbable collagen membranes: An experimental in vivo study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1491,'719-727');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1492,replace('Number: 2\nPMID: 33063219 \nPMCID: PMC7819926','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1493,'10.1007/s00784-020-03638-1');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1494,'OBJECTIVES: To assess contour changes of peri-implant tissues comparing a one- and a two-piece dental implant system over 12 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients seeking implant therapy were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive implants (a one-piece (STM) or a two-piece (BRA) system). Impressions were taken at the time of insertion of the final reconstruction (BL), after 1 year (FU-1), 5 years (FU-5), and at 12 years (FU-12). Thirty patients were included in the analysis (STM, 16; BRA, 14). Digital scans of casts were superimposed and analyzed in an image analysis program. Measurements included changes of the crown height, contour changes on the buccal side of the implants and the contralateral teeth (control). RESULTS: Contour changes at implant sites revealed a loss of - 0.29 mm (STM) and - 0.46 mm (BRA) during an observation period of 12 years. Contour changes at the corresponding tooth sites amounted to - 0.06 mm (STM) and - 0.12 mm (BRA) during the same time period. The implant crown gained 0.25 mm (STM) and 0.08 mm (BRA) in height due to recession of the marginal mucosa. The corresponding gain in crown height at the contralateral tooth sites amounted to 0.36 mm (STM) and 0.10 mm (BRA). Interproximal marginal bone level changes measured - 0.28 mm (STM) and - 1.11 mm (BRA). The mean BOP amounted to 38.8% (STM) and 48.7% (BRA) at the 12-year follow-up (FU-12). CONCLUSION: Minimal changes of the peri-implant soft tissue contour were observed at implant sites over the period of 12 years irrespective of the use of a one- or a two-piece implant system. The differences between the implant sites and corresponding teeth were clinically negligible. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Peri-implant soft tissue stability is of high clinical relevance when monitoring dental implant sites on the long run. Clinical data on the extent of soft tissue changes around different implant systems are scarce. The present RCTs demonstrate minimal changes of the peri-implant soft tissue contour 12 years after implant insertion independent of the use of a one- or a two-piece implant system.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1495,'Contour changes of peri-implant tissues are minimal and similar for a one- and a two-piece implant system over 12 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1496,'24 Suppl');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1497,'92-109');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1498,'2009-00-00 2009');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1499,replace('Place: United States\nPMID: 19885437','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1500,'PURPOSE: To assess the literature on accuracy and clinical performance of computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted to collect information about (1) the accuracy and (2) clinical performance of computer-assisted implant systems. Meta-regression analysis was performed for summarizing the accuracy studies. Failure/complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 12-month proportions. RESULTS: Twenty-nine different image guidance systems were included. From 2,827 articles, 13 clinical and 19 accuracy studies were included in this systematic review. The meta-analysis of the accuracy (19 clinical and preclinical studies) revealed a total mean error of 0.74 mm (maximum of 4.5 mm) at the entry point in the bone and 0.85 mm at the apex (maximum of 7.1 mm). For the 5 included clinical studies (total of 506 implants) using computer-assisted implant dentistry, the mean failure rate was 3.36% (0% to 8.45%) after an observation period of at least 12 months. In 4.6% of the treated cases, intraoperative complications were reported; these included limited interocclusal distances to perform guided implant placement, limited primary implant stability, or need for additional grafting procedures. CONCLUSION: Differing levels and quantity of evidence were available for computer-assisted implant placement, revealing high implant survival rates after only 12 months of observation in different indications and a reasonable level of accuracy. However, future long-term clinical data are necessary to identify clinical indications and to justify additional radiation doses, effort, and costs associated with computer-assisted implant surgery.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1501,'Computer technology applications in surgical implant dentistry: a systematic review.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1502,'1416-1426');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1503,replace('Number: 11\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32888335','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1504,'10.1111/jcpe.13363');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1505,'OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of a collagenated synthetic bone substitute (C-SBS) to a particulated synthetic bone substitute (P-SBS) in volume maintenance and new bone formations in a rabbit sinus model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Either C-SBS or P-SBS was grafted in both sinuses of 16 rabbits. Four (N = 8) or 12 (N = 8) weeks after the surgery, total augmented volume (TAV) and area (TAA), as well as new bone volume (NBV) and area (NBA), were statistically compared by radiographic and histomorphometric analyses (p < .05). RESULTS: The differences in TAV, NBV, TAA and NBA between C-SBS and P-SBS groups at 4 weeks were not statistically significant. The TAV (267.13 ± 62.08 vs. 200.18 ± 40.32 mm(3) ) and NBV (103.26 ± 10.50 vs. 71.10 ± 7.58 mm(3) ) in group C-SBS were significantly higher than in group P-SBS at 12 weeks (p < .05). The TAA (19.36 ± 2.88 vs. 14.48 ± 2.08 mm(2) ) and NBA (5.43 ± 1.20 vs. 3.76 ± 0.78 mm(2) ) in group C-SBS were significantly higher than in group P-SBS at 12 weeks (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Collagenated synthetic bone substitute grafted in rabbit sinuses demonstrated more favourable outcomes across all outcome measures compared to P-SBS at 12 weeks.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1506,'Dimensional changes of the maxillary sinus augmented with a collagenated synthetic bone block or synthetic bone particulates: A pre-clinical study in rabbits.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1507,'114');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1508,'328-336');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1509,'Schweizer Monatsschrift fur Zahnmedizin = Revue mensuelle suisse d''odonto-stomatologie = Rivista mensile svizzera di odontologia e stomatologia');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1510,'0256-2855');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1511,'2004-00-00 2004');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1512,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: Switzerland\nPMID: 15185481','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1513,'Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1514,'ger');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1515,'Alveolar bone resorption is frequently observed after tooth extraction. Atrophy of the alveolar ridge may cause esthetic and surgical problems in prosthetic dentistry. Augmentative measures may thus be required to guarantee optimal prosthetic replacement of the lost tissues. Augmentative bone treatment may result in extensive surgical interventions and increased treatment costs. Alveolar ridge prophylaxis immediately upon tooth extraction may reduce such sequelae for both, the treating dentist and the patient. Attempts to reduce alveolar bone resorption have included the placement of natural roots, root analogues, and immediate implants into the extraction socket, sometimes in combination with membrane or graft techniques. In the current review of the literature, techniques for alveolar ridge preservation are discussed.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1516,'[Prevention of alveolar ridge resorption after tooth extraction--a review].');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1517,'630-639');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1518,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32096246','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1519,'10.1111/jcpe.13271');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1520,'AIM: To assess mid-term clinical, radiographic and profilometric outcomes at implant sites, previously grafted with a volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX) or an autogenous subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG). METHODS: VCMX or SCTG were randomly applied to single implant sites in 20 patients. Following abutment connection and insertion of final reconstructions (baseline), patients were re-examined at 6 months (6M), at 1 year (FU-1) and at 3 years (FU-3). Measurements included the following: clinical data, radiographic measurement of first bone to implant contact (fBIC), soft tissue thickness and volumetric outcomes. Non-parametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis. RESULTS: The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.5 mm (Q1: -0.5; Q3: 1.25) (VCMX) (p = .281) and by 0.8 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 2.5) (SCTG) (p = .047) between BL and FU-3 (intergroup p = .303). The profilometric changes of the buccal soft tissues demonstrated a median decrease between BL and FU-3 of -0.2 mm (Q1: -0.5; Q3: -0.1) (p = .039) for VCMX and a decrease of -0.1 mm (Q1: -0.8; Q3: 0.1) (p = .020) for SCTG, respectively (intergroup p = .596). Peri-implant soft tissues and bone levels remained healthy throughout the entire study period. PROMs did not show any significant differences between the groups nor significant changes over time. CONCLUSION: Minimal changes of the peri-implant tissue contour as well as of the soft tissue thickness were observed at implant sites previously grafted with VCMX or SCTG.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1521,'Randomized controlled clinical trial comparing implant sites augmented with a volume-stable collagen matrix or an autogenous connective tissue graft: 3-year data after insertion of reconstructions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1522,'649-656');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1523,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32092169','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1524,'10.1111/jcpe.13273');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1525,'OBJECTIVES: To determine the volume stability of a sinus augmented with a collagenated bovine bone mineral (CBBM) in case of an intact or perforated Schneiderian membrane (SM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bilateral sinus augmentation procedure was performed in eight rabbits. The SM was intentionally perforated in one side (SMP group), while it remained intact in contra-lateral side (control group) and the same amount of CBBM was then grafted. At 12 weeks, the animals were euthanized for radiographic and histomorphometric analyses. RESULTS: The augmented volume did not differ significantly between the two groups: 262.2 ± 32.1 mm(3) in SMP group and 261.9 ± 48.5 mm(3) in the control group (p = .959). There was no significant difference in the total augmented area: 24.7 ± 5.2 mm(2) in SMP group and 23.2 ± 2.9 mm(2) in the control group (p = .773). The areas of newly formed bone also did not differ significantly between the two groups, but was significantly lower at the centre of the augmented region than in the region of the surgical window in both groups (p < .05). CONCLUSION: A perforation of the SM in a rabbit model does neither impact the augmented volume nor new bone formation following grafting of the sinus with a CBBM.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1526,'Volume stability of the augmented sinus using a collagenated bovine bone mineral grafted in case of a perforated Schneiderian membrane: An experimental study in rabbits.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1527,'29 Suppl 18');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1528,'157-159');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1529,'2018-10-00 2018 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1530,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 30306692','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1531,'10.1111/clr.13269');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1532,'OBJECTIVES: This publication reports the EAO Workshop group-2 and consensus plenary discussions and statements on a narrative review providing the background and possible facilities and importance of a dental implant register, to allow for a systematic follow-up of the clinical outcome of dental implant treatment in various clinical settings. It should be observed that the format of the review and the subsequent consensus report consciously departs from conventional consensus publications and reports. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The publication was a narrative review on the presence and significance of quality registers regarding select medical conditions and procedures. The group discussed and evaluated the publication and made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the statements and recommendations described in this consensus report. RESULTS: Possible registrations to be included in an implant register were discussed and agreed as a preliminary basis for further development, meaning that additional parameters be included or some be deleted. CONCLUSIONS: It was agreed to bring the idea of an implant quality register, including the presented results of discussions and proposals by the group- and plenary sessions, to the EAO Board for further discussion and decision.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1533,'Dental implant register: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 5(th) EAO Consensus Conference 2018.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1534,'452-462');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1535,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 31981374','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1536,'10.1111/clr.13581');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1537,'AIM: To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of one-piece zirconia implants restored with single crowns (SCs) or fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) over an observation period of 5 years in function. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospective cohort investigation with two investigational centers, one-piece zirconia implants were placed in anterior and posterior sites. After a healing period of at least 2 months in the mandible and 4 months in the maxilla with immediate provisional reconstructions, the final all-ceramic SCs or three-unit FDPs were cemented. Patients were followed for 5 years. Clinical parameters and radiological measurements of the implants and the neighboring teeth were assessed. For the statistical analysis, linear mixed models were applied. RESULTS: A total of 71 implants were placed in 60 patients. Sixty-three implants in 53 patients could be evaluated at the 5-year follow-up. Six patients with a total of seven implants were counted as dropouts. One implant did not achieve adequate osseointegration and had to be removed 5 weeks after implantation. The 5-year survival rate was calculated as 98.4% (95% CI 91.6, 99.9). The mean overall marginal bone loss from implant placement to the 5-year follow-up was 0.7 ± 0.6 mm. After an initial mean marginal loss before loading the implants (0.7 mm), no further statistically significant change in marginal bone level (p = .458) could be observed. CONCLUSION: The investigated one-piece zirconia implant showed a high survival rate, very stable marginal bone, and mucosal margin levels after 5 years in function. Therefore, it can be considered safe and reliable for the reconstruction of implant-supported SCs or FDPs over a mid-term period.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1538,'Zirconia implants restored with single crowns or fixed dental prostheses: 5-year results of a prospective cohort investigation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1539,'36-53');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1540,'Periodontology 2000');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1541,'0906-6713');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1542,'2003-00-00 2003');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1543,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 12950840','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1544,'Periodontol 2000');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1545,'10.1046/j.0906-6713.2003.03304.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1546,'Bone augmentation by means of barrier membranes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1547,'© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1548,'123-133');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1549,'2021-01-00 2021 Jan');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1550,replace('Number: 1\nPMID: 33217058 \nPMCID: PMC7839667','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1551,'10.1111/clr.13686');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1552,'OBJECTIVES: To compare two ridge preservation techniques and spontaneous healing in terms of hard and soft tissue changes 2 months after tooth extraction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial and included 75 patients. After single tooth extraction in the maxillary incisor/premolar area, patients were randomly allocated to one of the following groups: (a) ridge preservation with a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a collagen matrix (CM-group), (b) ridge preservation with a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a free palatal graft (PG-group) or (c) spontaneous healing (control). Eight weeks after tooth extraction, implants were placed and clinical, profilometric and radiographic evaluations were performed. In addition, the need for further guided bone regeneration (GBR) at implant placement was assessed. The differences between the treatment groups were compared with the One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test with the corresponding post hoc analysis. The proportions of the categorical parameters were compared with the Fisher´s exact test. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients underwent early implant placement 8 weeks after tooth extraction and were evaluated. CM-group (-0.9 SD 0.6 mm) and PG-group (-1.0 SD 0.8 mm) showed less horizontal bone resorption compared to the control group (-3.2 SD 2.1 mm) (p < .001). Moreover, the necessity of GBR at implant placement was significantly less in CM-group (32%) and PG-group (24%) when compared to control group (72%) (p = .001). Patients in CM-group experienced less pain than PG-group, one week after tooth extraction (p = .042). No significant differences were found regarding graft evaluation, post-operative complications, and soft tissue contour. CONCLUSIONS: Ridge preservation using a xenogeneic bone substitute covered with a collagen matrix or a palatal graft, results in less bone resorption and fewer GBR procedures at early implant placement compared to spontaneous healing.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1553,'Soft tissue contour and radiographic evaluation of ridge preservation in early implant placement: A randomized controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1554,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 32451759','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1555,'10.1007/s00784-020-03362-w');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1556,'OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical, radiographic, and histological healing patterns between the immediate and delayed applications of bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) in damaged extraction sockets in dogs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The distal roots of the fourth premolars of the mandible were extracted bilaterally in five beagle dogs, and buccal bone defects (4 mm wide and 9 mm high) were surgically created. Collagenated biphasic calcium phosphate (CBCP) soaked for 10 min in 100 μL of BMP-2 solution was applied immediately to the defect site in the control group. In the test group, the BMP-2 solution of same dose was injected into the grafted site 2 weeks after grafting with a saline-soaked CBCP. The dogs were sacrificed 2 weeks later. Clinical, histological, and radiographic analyses were followed. RESULTS: Swelling and inflammatory reactions were predominantly observed in the control group at 2 weeks. The area of new bone formation was significantly larger in the control group compared with the test group (10.8 ± 7.0 mm(2) [mean ± SD] and 6.3 ± 3.1 mm(2), respectively; p = 0.043). No significant difference was found in ridge width at 2 mm, 4 mm and 6 mm below the lingual bone crest between the control (2.6 ± 1.0 mm, 3.2 ± 0.9 mm and 4.5 ± 0.5 mm, respectively) and test group (3.3 ± 1.0 mm, 3.7 ± 1.3 mm and 4.2 ± 1.0 mm; all p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed application of BMP-2 2 weeks after surgery did not show any advantage over immediate application of BMP-2 in terms of new bone formation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study suggests that it might be better to apply BMP-2 immediately in alveolar ridge preservation, instead of delayed application, in order to enhance new bone formation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1557,'Immediate versus delayed application of bone morphogenetic protein-2 solution in damaged extraction sockets: a preclinical in vivo investigation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1558,'2021-06-19 2021 Jun 19');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1559,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 34145925','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1560,'10.1111/clr.13798');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1561,'OBJECTIVES: The task of working Group 2 at the 6(th) Consensus Meeting of the European Association of Osseointegration was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including an overview on available outcome measures and methods of assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three systematic reviews and one critical review were performed in advance on i) the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on clinical, radiographic and aesthetic outcomes, ii) reliability and validity of outcome measures and methods of assessment and, iii) PROMs applied in clinical studies for soft tissue augmentation procedures at dental implant sites. Major findings, consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were discussed in the group and approved during the plenary sessions. RESULTS: The four reviews predominantly revealed: Soft tissue augmentation procedures in conjunction with immediate and delayed implant placement result in superior aesthetic outcomes compared to no soft tissue augmentation in the zone of aesthetic priority. Soft tissue augmentation procedures have a limited effect on marginal bone level changes compared to implant sites without soft tissue augmentation. Clinically relevant parameters (gingival index, mucosal recession) and plaque control improve at implant sites when the width of keratinised mucosa is increased. A variety of aesthetic indices have been described with good reliability. Pink Esthetic Score and Complex Esthetic Index are the most validated aesthetic indices for single implants, though. Superimposed digital surface scans are most accurate to assess profilometric tissue changes. PROMs following soft tissue augmentation procedures have been assessed using various forms of questionnaires. Soft tissue augmentation had a limited effect of PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Soft tissue augmentation procedures are widely applied in conjunction with implant therapy. Depending on the indication of these interventions, clinical, radiographic, and aesthetic outcomes may improve, whereas the effect on PROMs is limited.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1562,'Consensus Report of Working Group 2: Soft Tissue Management.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1563,'1535-1545');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1564,'2021-03-00 2021 Mar');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1565,replace('Number: 3\nPMID: 32719982 \nPMCID: PMC7878233','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1566,'10.1007/s00784-020-03461-8');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1567,'AIM: To assess histopathological and histomorphometric outcomes of soft tissue volume augmentation procedures at pontic sites using a volume-stable cross-linked collagen matrix (VCMX) and a non-cross-linked collagen matrix (XCM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In twelve adult beagle dogs, the mandibular premolars and first molar were hemisected and the mesial root extracted. Soft tissue augmentation was randomly performed using VCMX, XCM, or a sham-operated control. Sacrifice was performed after 4, 8, and 26 weeks. Non-decalcified sections were analyzed for histopathologic and histomorphometric measurements at four different levels below the crest (1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 5.5 mm). RESULTS: Group VCMX presented a greater overall amount of soft tissue at all healing time points, more pronounced fibroblast ingrowth, vascularization, and a substantial new collagen deposition. Over time, group XCM demonstrated faster signs of degradation compared with group VCMX. Four weeks after augmentation, group VCMX yielded a higher mean ridge width compared with groups XCM (2.22 mm VCMX, 0.89 mm XCM (at 2.5 mm); 2.05 mm VCMX, 0.80 mm XCM (at 3.5 mm) p < 0.05) and sham (0.59 mm sham (at 1.5 mm); 0.48 mm (at 2.5 mm); 0.44 mm (at 3.5 mm) p < 0.05). After healing periods of 8 and 26 weeks, measurements in group VCMX remained significantly higher compared with group sham both at 8 weeks (levels of 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm and 5.5 mm) and at 26 weeks (levels of 1.5 mm, 3.5 mm and 5.5 mm) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of a cross-linked collagen matrix resulted in a greater and more stable ridge width over time compared with control groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Soft tissue volume augmentation at pontic sites is more effective when using a cross-linked compared with a non-cross-linked collagen matrix.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1568,'Augmentation of soft tissue volume at pontic sites: a comparison between a cross-linked and a non-cross-linked collagen matrix.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1569,'152-156');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1570,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 30306685','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1571,'10.1111/clr.13274');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1572,'OBJECTIVES: This publication reports the EAO Workshop group-2 discussions and consensus statements which provided the scientific evidence on the influence of biological parameters on implant-related clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The first publication was a systematic review on the biological effects of abutment material on the stability of peri-implant marginal bone levels and the second, a critical narrative review on how peri-implant diagnostic parameters correspond with long-term implant survival and success. The group evaluated the content of both publications, made corrections and recommendations to the authors and agreed on the consensus statements, clinical recommendations and recommendations for future research, which are described in this consensus report. RESULTS: Tested abutment materials can be considered appropriate for clinical use according to the observation period studied (mean 3.5 years). Mean peri-implant bone loss and mean probing pocket depths are not adequate outcomes to study the prevalence of peri-implantitis, while the reporting of frequency distributions is considered more appropriate. CONCLUSIONS: Titanium is currently considered the standard of care as abutment material, although other materials may be more suitable for aesthetic locations. Peri-implantitis should be diagnosed through composite evaluations of peri-implant tissue inflammation and assessment of marginal bone loss with different thresholds.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1573,'Biological aspects: Summary and consensus statements of group 2. The 5(th) EAO Consensus Conference 2018.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1574,'616-626');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1575,'2009-08-00 2009 Jul-Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1576,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 19885401','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1577,'PURPOSE: The aim of this article was to review the current literature with regard to biofilm formation on dental implants and the influence of surface characteristics (chemistry, surface free energy, and roughness) of dental implant and abutment materials and their design features on biofilm formation and its sequelae. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic MEDLINE literature search was conducted of studies published between 1966 and June 2007. The following search terms were used: biofilm and dental implants, biofilm formation/plaque bacterial adhesion and implants, plaque/biofilm and surface characteristics/roughness/surface free energy of titanium dental implants, implant-abutment interface and plaque/biofilm, biofilm and supragingival/subgingival plaque microbiology, biofilm/plaque and implant infection, antibacterial/bacteriostatic titanium, titanium nanocoating/nanopatterning, antimicrobial drug/titanium implant. Both in vitro and in vivo studies were included in this review. RESULTS: Fifty-three articles were identified in this review process. The articles were categorized with respect to their context on biofilm formation on teeth and dental implant surfaces and with regard to the influence of surface characteristics of implant biomaterials (especially titanium) and design features of implant and abutment components on biofilm formation. The current state of literature is more descriptive, rather than providing strong data that could be analyzed through meta-analysis. Basic research articles on surface modification of titanium were also included in the review to analyze the applications of such studies on the fabrication of implant surfaces that could possibly decrease early bacterial colonization and biofilm formation. CONCLUSIONS: Increase in surface roughness and surface free energy facilitates biofilm formation on dental implant and abutment surfaces, although this conclusion is derived from largely descriptive literature. Surface chemistry and the design features of the implant-abutment configuration also play a significant role in biofilm formation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1578,'Biofilm on dental implants: a review of the literature.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1579,'656-662');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1580,'1942-4426 0893-2174');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1581,'2020-12-00 2020 Nov/Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1582,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 33284908','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1583,'10.11607/ijp.6709');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1584,'PURPOSE: To investigate the effect of aging on the morphology of the interface between monolithic implant crowns and standardized titanium base abutments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups of hybrid abutment crowns differing in restorative material (lithium disilicate [LD] or polymer-infiltrated ceramic network [PICN]) and in fabrication procedure of the interfacial zone for luting to a titanium abutment (milled during CAD/ CAM procedure [M] or prefabricated [P]) were formed: LDS-M, LDS-P, PICN-M, and PICN-P (n = 10 each). The morphology of the crown-abutment interface was examined before and after artificial aging using scanning electron microscopy. The total gap length per specimen was measured at both time points, and intergroup (Kruskal-Wallis [KW]) plus pairwise (Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney [WMW]) comparisons were performed (α = .05). RESULTS: Before aging, statistically significant differences in gap length were identified among groups (KW: P = .0369) for PICN-P > LDS-P (WMW: P = .0496) and LDS-M > LDS-P (WMW: P = .0060). The effect of aging among the groups, expressed as an increment of total gap length, was 50% in LDS-M, 30% in LDS-P, 20% in PICN-M, and 30% in PICN-P. After aging, the statistically significant differences in gap length identified among groups (KW: P = .0048) were for PICN-P > LDS-P (WMW: P = .0134); LDS-M > PICN-M (WMW: P = .0204); PICN-P > PICN-M (WMW: P = .0486); and LDS-M > LDS-P (P = .0022). However, comparison of the difference in gap length from before to after aging among the groups was not statistically significant (KW: P = .3549). CONCLUSION: The cementation interfaces of CAD/CAM crowns on standardized titanium base abutments demonstrated a high percentage of gaps before and after thermomechanical loading. The composition of the restorative material and the nature of the interface influenced the interfacial gap dimension.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1585,'Effect of Thermomechanical Loading on the Cementation Interface of Implant-Supported CAD/CAM Crowns Luted to Titanium Abutments.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1586,'148');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1587,'2020-05-19 2020 May 19');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1588,replace('Number: 1\nPMID: 32429904 \nPMCID: PMC7238548','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1589,'10.1186/s12903-020-01124-4');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1590,'BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a chronic inflammation of the tooth supporting structures that finally can lead to tooth loss. As chronic periodontitis is associated with systemic diseases multiple approaches have been followed to support regeneration of the destructed tissue. But very few materials are actually used in the clinic. A new and promising group of biomaterials with advantageous biomechanical properties that have the ability to support periodontal regeneration are self-assembling peptides (SAP). However, there is still a lack of 3D periodontal models that can evaluate the migration potential of such novel materials. METHODS: All experiments were performed with primary human periodontal ligament fibroblasts (HPLF). Migration capacity was assessed in a three-dimensional model of the human periodontal ligament by measuring the migration distance of viable cells on coated (Enamel Matrix Protein (EMP), P11-4, collagen I) or uncoated human dentin. Cellular metabolic activity on P11-4 hydrogels was assessed by a metabolic activity assay. Deposition of ECM molecules in a P11-4 hydrogel was visualized by immunostaining of collagen I and III and fibrillin I. RESULTS: The 3D periodontal model was feasible to show the positive effect of EMP for periodontal regeneration. Subsequently, self-assembling peptide P11-4 was used to evaluate its capacity to support regenerative processes in the 3D periodontal model. HPLF coverage of the dentin surface coated with P11-4 increased significantly over time, even though delayed compared to EMP. Cell viability increased and inclusion of ECM proteins into the biomaterial was shown. CONCLUSION: The presented results indicate that the 3D periodontal model is feasible to assess periodontal defect coverage and that P11-4 serves as an efficient supporter of regenerative processes in the periodontal ligament. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The establishment of building-block synthetic polymers offers new opportunities for clinical application in dentistry. Self-assembling peptides represent a new generation of biomaterials as they are able to respond dynamically to the changing environment of the biological surrounding. Especially in the context of peri-implant disease prevention and treatment they enable the implementation of new concepts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1591,'Development and application of a 3D periodontal in vitro model for the evaluation of fibrillar biomaterials.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1592,'Copyright © 2020. Korean Academy of Periodontology.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1593,'327-339');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1594,'2020-10-00 2020 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1595,replace('Number: 5\nPMID: 33124210 \nPMCID: PMC7606894','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1596,'10.5051/jpis.2000380019');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1597,'PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the local tissue reactions associated with 3 different poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid) (PLGA) prototype membranes and to compare them to the reactions associated with commercially available resorbable membranes in rats. METHODS: Seven different membranes-3 synthetic PLGA prototypes (T1, T2, and T3) and 4 commercially available membranes (a PLGA membrane, a poly[lactic acid] membrane, a native collagen membrane, and a cross-linked collagen membrane)-were randomly inserted into 6 unconnected subcutaneous pouches in the backs of 42 rats. The animals were sacrificed at 4, 13, and 26 weeks. Descriptive histologic and histomorphometric assessments were performed to evaluate membrane degradation, visibility, tissue integration, tissue ingrowth, neovascularization, encapsulation, and inflammation. Means and standard deviations were calculated. RESULTS: The histological analysis revealed complete integration and tissue ingrowth of PLGA prototype T1 at 26 weeks. In contrast, the T2 and T3 prototypes displayed slight to moderate integration and tissue ingrowth regardless of time point. The degradation patterns of the 3 synthetic prototypes were similar at 4 and 13 weeks, but differed at 26 weeks. T1 showed marked degradation at 26 weeks, whereas T2 and T3 displayed moderate degradation. Inflammatory cells were present in all 3 prototype membranes at all time points, and these membranes did not meaningfully differ from commercially available membranes with regard to the extent of inflammatory cell infiltration. CONCLUSIONS: The 3 PLGA prototypes, particularly T1, induced favorable tissue integration, exhibited a similar degradation rate to native collagen membranes, and elicited a similar inflammatory response to commercially available non-cross-linked resorbable membranes. The intensity of inflammation associated with degradable dental membranes appears to relate to their degradation kinetics, irrespective of their material composition.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1598,'Local tissue effects of various barrier membranes in a rat subcutaneous model.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1599,'515-523');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1600,replace('Number: 6\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 30980771','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1601,'10.1111/clr.13436');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1602,'OBJECTIVES: To test whether or not alveolar ridge preservation reduces vertical changes in the posterior maxilla compared to spontaneous healing following tooth extraction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty subjects requiring extraction of maxillary posterior teeth with root apices protruding into the maxillary sinus floor were consecutively enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to either one of two surgical interventions: an alveolar ridge preservation procedure using collagenated bovine bone mineral and a resorbable collagen membrane (test) or no grafting (control). Cone-beam computed tomographies were taken immediately and at 6 months after surgery, prior to dental implant placement. RESULTS: Based on radiographic data, the level of the sinus floor remained stable over time (baseline to 6 months) in the test group (-0.14 mm [-0.31, -0.02]). In the control group, the sinus floor level shifted more coronally (-1.16 mm [-1.73, -0.61]) than the test group (p < 0.05). The test group demonstrated a significantly larger residual bone height than the control group at 6 months (7.30 mm [6.36, 8.20] vs. 4.83 mm [3.94, 5.76], respectively, p < 0.05). Implant placement without any additional sinus augmentation procedure was performed in 42.9% of test group cases, whereas in all of the subjects in the control group an additional augmentation procedure was needed (100% of the cases). CONCLUSION: Alveolar ridge preservation in the posterior maxilla maintained the vertical bone height more efficiently and resulted in less need for sinus augmentation procedures at 6 months compared to spontaneous healing.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1603,'Alveolar ridge preservation in the posterior maxilla reduces vertical dimensional change: A randomized controlled clinical trial.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1604,'487-492');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1605,replace('Number: 5\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32956429','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1606,'10.11607/ijp.6470');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1607,'PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to assess the perceptibility and acceptability threshold values for color differentiation at the restoration and mucosa levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One restored single-tooth implant and the contralateral reference tooth were spectrophotometrically assessed in 20 patients. Perceptibility and acceptability were evaluated by dentists, dental technicians, and laypeople. RESULTS: Dental technicians had the highest sensitivity in the perception of tooth color differences (ΔE = 2.7), followed by dentists (ΔE = 3.3) and laypeople (ΔE = 4.4). Acceptability threshold values were generally higher than perceptibility threshold in all groups. Dental technicians exhibited the highest sensitivity in the perception of mucosa color differences (50% perceptibility at ΔE = 2.65), followed by dentists (ΔE > 3.7) and laypeople (ΔE > 6). CONCLUSION: Color differences were tolerated with varying degrees among the three groups. Laypeople accepted higher color differences at the mucosa level.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1608,'Perceptibility and Acceptability of Color Differences of Single-Tooth Implants at the Restoration and Mucosa Levels: An Exploratory Clinical Study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1609,'51');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1610,'566-576');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1611,replace('Number: 7\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 32500864','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1612,'10.3290/j.qi.a44631');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1613,'OBJECTIVES: Long-term retrospective evaluation of the survival rate and the technical and biologic outcomes of all-ceramic inlays and onlays in premolars and molars. METHOD AND MATERIALS: Fifty-four patients treated as part of a prospective clinical trial and having received 157 inlays and 27 onlays made out of a leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic (IPS Empress) in premolars and molars, were invited to the present follow-up examination. The survival of the restorations was evaluated. The biologic outcomes were assessed by measuring the pocket probing depth (PPD), the Plaque Index (PI), and the Sulcus Bleeding Index (SBI). The technical behavior was evaluated using modified US Public Health Service criteria (modUSPHS). Finally, patient satisfaction was recorded with a questionnaire. Data of patients and restored teeth were analyzed descriptively, and continuous variables were given in mean values and standard deviations. For the analysis of the restoration survival over time, the Kaplan-Meier survival estimate was calculated. The level of statistical significance was set at P < .05. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (20 women, 16 men; mean age 50.9 years) with 132 restorations, 107 inlays and 25 onlays, were examined after a mean observation time of 11.2 ± 4.3 years. The overall 11-year survival rate of the 132 restorations was 80.3%. Inlays exhibited an 11-year survival rate of 80.4% and onlays of 80.0%. Twenty-two technical complications occurred. Ceramic fractures (10.6%) and chipping (2.3%) were the most frequent complications. Six biologic complications occurred (4.5%). CONCLUSION: Glass-ceramic inlays and onlays presented favorable long-term clinical survival and success rates. Technical complications were predominant, and biologic problems remained rare. More clinical long-term data are needed.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1614,'Long-term outcomes of all-ceramic inlays and onlays after a mean observation time of 11 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1615,'International journal of environmental research and public health');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1616,'1660-4601 1661-7827');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1617,'2020-03-18 2020 Mar 18');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1618,replace('Number: 6\nPMID: 32197311 \nPMCID: PMC7143449','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1619,'Int J Environ Res Public Health');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1620,'10.3390/ijerph17061987');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1621,'The digital transformation in dental medicine, based on electronic health data information, is recognized as one of the major game-changers of the 21st century to tackle present and upcoming challenges in dental and oral healthcare. This opinion letter focuses on the estimated top five trends and innovations of this new digital era, with potential to decisively influence the direction of dental research: (1) rapid prototyping (RP), (2) augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR), (3) artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML), (4) personalized (dental) medicine, and (5) tele-healthcare. Digital dentistry requires managing expectations pragmatically and ensuring transparency for all stakeholders: patients, healthcare providers, university and research institutions, the medtech industry, insurance, public media, and state policy. It should not be claimed or implied that digital smart data technologies will replace humans providing dental expertise and the capacity for patient empathy. The dental team that controls digital applications remains the key and will continue to play the central role in treating patients. In this context, the latest trend word is created: augmented intelligence, e.g., the meaningful combination of digital applications paired with human qualities and abilities in order to achieve improved dental and oral healthcare, ensuring quality of life.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1622,'Recent Trends and Future Direction of Dental Research in the Digital Era.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1623,'519-527');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1624,'2020-08-00 2020 Jul/Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1625,replace('Number: 4\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32559034','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1626,'10.11607/prd.4575');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1627,'Peri-implant bone dehiscences were grafted either with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) block or with particulate DBBM, both covered with a collagen membrane and stabilized with resorbable pins. After 6 months, 17 biopsy samples were included for histologic assessment. Block and particulate DBBM rendered successful tissue integration. Particulate DBBM showed a median of 25.2% of new bone and 31.3% of bone substitute. In the block group, there was a median of 11.5% of new bone and 36.0% of bone substitute. When interpreting the discrepancy in new bone between the groups, the difference in the size of the augmented hard tissue needs to be taken into account.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1628,'Histologic Outcomes After Guided Bone Regeneration of Peri-implant Defects Comparing Individually Shaped Block Versus Particulate Bone Substitutes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1629,'13-14');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1630,'905-913');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1631,'2021-07-00 2021 Jul');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1632,replace('Number: 13-14\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32940142','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1633,'10.1089/ten.TEA.2020.0151');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1634,'The objective of this study was to investigate in vitro release kinetics and ossification patterns of bone morphogenetic protein-2-soaked collagenated porcine bone mineral (BMP-2/CPBM) in rabbit sinuses. Release kinetics of BMP-2/CPBM was determined in vitro up to 56 days. In 16 rabbits, BMP-2/CPBM (BMP group) and CPBM alone (control group) were bilaterally grafted in both sinuses. After 4 (N = 8) and 12 (N = 8) weeks, radiographic and histologic analyses were performed. Approximately 40% of BMP-2 was released from CPBM during 3 days in vitro; release maintained at a reduced level until day 56. In vivo, new bone formation in BMP group was dominant at the center and decreased toward the borders of the sinus, while it mainly possessed close to the sinus membrane and basal bone in control group. At the center, significantly more new bone was found in BMP group compared to control group at 4 weeks (29.14% vs. 16.50%; p < 0.05). The total augmented volume of BMP group was significantly greater than control group at 4 (370.13 mm(3) vs. 299.32 mm(3)) and 12 (400.40 mm(3) vs. 290.10 mm(3)) weeks (p < 0.05). In conclusion, BMP-2/CPBM demonstrated a core ossification with a greater augmented volume and new bone formation in the center of the sinus compared to CPBM alone. Impact statement The center of the augmented maxillary sinus tends to show a slower and inferior new bone formation compared to the sites near the sinus membrane and basal bone. In this study, bone morphogenetic protein-2 (BMP-2) loaded onto collagenated porcine bone mineral (CPBM) resulted in a greater augmented volume and new bone formation at the center of the grafted sinus compared to CPBM alone. Therefore, BMP-2-added CPBM in maxillary sinus augmentation may potentially be beneficial to the clinicians, in terms of accelerating the new bone formation at the center area where the apical half of the implant fixture usually places.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1635,'Core Ossification of Bone Morphogenetic Protein-2-Loaded Collagenated Bone Mineral in the Sinus.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1636,'23 Suppl 6');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1637,'2-21');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1638,'2012-10-00 2012 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1639,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 23062124','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1640,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02547.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1641,'OBJECTIVE: To assess the 5-year survival of implant-supported single crowns (SCs) and to describe the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications. The focused question was: What is the survival rate of implants supporting single crowns and implant-supported crowns with a mean follow-up of 5 years and to which extent do biological, technical, and aesthetic complications occur? METHODS: A Medline search (2006-2011) was performed for clinical studies focusing on implant-supported SCs with a mean follow-up of at least 5 years. The search was complemented by an additional hand search and the inclusion of 24 studies from a previous systematic review (Jung et al. 2008a). Survival and complication rates were analyzed using random-effects Poisson''s regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5- and 10-year proportions. RESULTS: Forty-six studies derived from an initial search count of 1083 titles and the complementary publications from the previous systematic review (Jung et al. 2008a) were selected and the data were extracted. Based on the meta-analysis, survival of implants supporting SCs at 5 years amounted to 97.2% (95% CI: 96.3-97.9%), and at 10 years amounted to 95.2% (95% CI: 91.8-97.2%). The survival of implant-supported SCs was 96.3% (95% CI: 94.2-97.6%) after 5 years and 89.4% (95% CI: 82.8-93.6%) after 10 years. For biological complications, a 5-year cumulative soft tissue complication rate of 7.1% (95% CI: 4.4-11.3%) and a cumulative complication rate for implants with bone loss >2 mm of 5.2% (95% CI: 3.1-8.6%) were calculated. Technical complications reached a cumulative incidence of 8.8% (95% CI: 5.1-15.0%) for screw-loosening, 4.1% (95% CI: 2.2-7.5%) for loss of retention, and 3.5% (95% CI: 2.4-5.2%) for fracture of the veneering material after 5 years. The cumulative 5-year aesthetic complication rate amounted to 7.1% (95% CI: 3.6-13.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of the meta-analysis demonstrated high implant survival rates for both the single tooth implants and the respective single crowns after 5 and 10 years. However, technical, biological, and aesthetic complications were frequent.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1642,'Systematic review of the survival rate and the incidence of biological, technical, and aesthetic complications of single crowns on implants reported in longitudinal studies with a mean follow-up of 5 years.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1643,'20 Suppl 4');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1644,'73-86');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1645,'2009-09-00 2009 Sep');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1646,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 19663953','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1647,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01788.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1648,'INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the dental literature regarding accuracy and clinical application in computer-guided template-based implant dentistry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic literature search complemented by manual searching was performed to gather data on accuracy and surgical, biological and prosthetic complications in connection with computer-guided implant treatment. For the assessment of accuracy meta-regression analysis was performed. Complication rates are descriptively summarized. RESULTS: From 3120 titles after the literature search, eight articles met the inclusion criteria regarding accuracy and 10 regarding the clinical performance. Meta-regression analysis revealed a mean deviation at the entry point of 1.07 mm (95% CI: 0.76-1.22 mm) and at the apex of 1.63 mm (95% CI: 1.26-2 mm). No significant differences between the studies were found regarding method of template production or template support and stabilization. Early surgical complications occurred in 9.1%, early prosthetic complications in 18.8% and late prosthetic complications in 12% of the cases. Implant survival rates of 91-100% after an observation time of 12-60 months are reported in six clinical studies with 537 implants mainly restored immediately after flapless implantation procedures. CONCLUSION: Computer-guided template-based implant placement showed high implant survival rates ranging from 91% to 100%. However, a considerable number of technique-related perioperative complications were observed. Preclinical and clinical studies indicated a reasonable mean accuracy with relatively high maximum deviations. Future research should be directed to increase the number of clinical studies with longer observation periods and to improve the systems in terms of perioperative handling, accuracy and prosthetic complications.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1649,'A systematic review on the accuracy and the clinical outcome of computer-guided template-based implant dentistry.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1650,'7-10');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1651,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 29498127','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1652,'10.1111/clr.13110');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1653,'OBJECTIVES: The goal of Working Group 1 at the 2nd Consensus Meeting of the Osteology Foundation was to comprehensively assess the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures included a total of 10 studies (mucosal thickness: n = 6; keratinized tissue: n = 4). Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and implications for future research were based on structured group discussions and a plenary session approval. RESULTS: Soft tissue grafting to increase the width of keratinized tissue around implants was associated with greater reductions in gingival and plaque indices when compared to non-augmented sites. Statistically significant differences were noted for final marginal bone levels in favor of an apically positioned flap plus autogenous graft vs. all standard-of-care control treatments investigated. Soft tissue grafting (i.e., autogenous connective tissue) to increase the mucosal thickness around implants in the aesthetic zone was associated with significantly less marginal bone loss over time, but no significant changes in bleeding on probing, probing depths, or plaque scores when compared to sites without grafting. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence available supports the use of soft tissue augmentation procedures to promote peri-implant health.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1654,'Evidence-based knowledge on the aesthetics and maintenance of peri-implant soft tissues: Osteology Foundation Consensus Report Part 1-Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on the maintenance of peri-implant soft tissue health.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1655,'41 Suppl 15');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1656,'S77-91');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1657,replace('Place: United States\nPMID: 24641003','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1658,'10.1111/jcpe.12220');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1659,'AIM: To review the dental literature in terms of efficacy of soft tissue augmentation procedures around dental implants and in partially edentulous sites. METHODS: A Medline search was performed for human studies augmenting keratinized mucosa (KM) and soft tissue volume around implants and in partially edentulous areas. Due to heterogeneity in between the studies, no meta-analyses could be performed. RESULTS: Nine (KM) and eleven (volume) studies met the inclusion criteria. An apically positioned flap/vestibuloplasty (APF/V) plus a graft material [free gingival graft (FGG)/subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG)/collagen matrix (CM)] resulted in an increase of keratinized tissue (1.4-3.3 mm). Statistically significantly better outcomes were obtained for APF/V plus FGG/SCTG compared with controls (APF/V alone; no treatment) (p < 0.05). For surgery time and patient morbidity, statistically significantly more favourable outcomes were reported for CM compared to SCTGs (p < 0.05) in two randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), even though rendering less keratinized tissue. SCTGs were the best-documented method for gain of soft tissue volume at implant sites and partially edentulous sites. Aesthetically at immediate implant sites, better papilla fill and higher marginal mucosal levels were obtained using SCTGs compared to non-grafted sites. CONCLUSIONS: An APF/V plus FGG/SCTG was the best-documented and most successful method to increase the width of KM. APF/V plus CM demonstrated less gain in KM, but also less patient morbidity and surgery time compared to APF/V plus SCTG based on two RCTs. Autogenous grafts (SCTG) rendered an increase in soft tissue thickness and better aesthetics compared to non-grafted sites.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1660,'Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and in partially edentulous areas: a systematic review.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1661,'66');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1662,'106-118');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1663,'1600-0757 0906-6713');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1664,'2014-10-00 2014 Oct');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1665,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 25123764','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1666,'10.1111/prd.12045');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1667,'Dental implants have proven to be a successful treatment option in fully and partially edentulous patients, rendering long-term functional and esthetic outcomes. Various factors are crucial for predictable long-term peri-implant tissue stability, including the biologic width; the papilla height and the mucosal soft-tissue level; the amounts of soft-tissue volume and keratinized tissue; and the biotype of the mucosa. The biotype of the mucosa is congenitally set, whereas many other parameters can, to some extent, be influenced by the treatment itself. Clinically, the choice of the dental implant and the position in a vertical and horizontal direction can substantially influence the establishment of the biologic width and subsequently the location of the buccal mucosa and the papilla height. Current treatment concepts predominantly focus on providing optimized peri-implant soft-tissue conditions before the start of the prosthetic phase and insertion of the final reconstruction. These include refined surgical techniques and the use of materials from autogenous and xenogenic origins to augment soft-tissue volume and keratinized tissue around dental implants, thereby mimicking the appearance of natural teeth.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1668,'Critical soft-tissue dimensions with dental implants and treatment concepts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1669,'146-165');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1670,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 19663961','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1671,'10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01784.x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1672,'AIM: The aim of the present review was to systematically assess the dental literature in terms of soft tissue grafting techniques. The focused question was: is one method superior over others for augmentation and stability of the augmented soft tissue in terms of increasing the width of keratinized tissue (part 1) and gain in soft tissue volume (part 2). METHODS: A Medline search was performed for human studies focusing on augmentation of keratinized tissue and/or soft tissue volume, and complemented by additional hand searching. Relevant studies were identified and statistical results were reported for meta-analyses including the test minus control weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals, the I-squared statistic for tests of heterogeneity, and the number of significant studies. RESULTS: Twenty-five (part 1) and three (part 2) studies met the inclusion criteria; 14 studies (part 1) were eligible for comparison using meta-analyses. An apically positioned flap/vestibuloplasty (APF/V) procedure resulted in a statistically significantly greater gain in keratinized tissue than untreated controls. APF/V plus autogenous tissue revealed statistically significantly more attached gingiva compared with untreated controls and a borderline statistical significance compared with APF/V plus allogenic tissue. Statistically significantly more shrinkage was observed for the APF/V plus allogenic graft compared with the APF/V plus autogenous tissue. Patient-centered outcomes did not reveal any of the treatment methods to be superior regarding postoperative complications. The three studies reporting on soft tissue volume augmentation could not be compared due to lack of homogeneity. The use of subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs) resulted in statistically significantly more soft tissue volume gain compared with free gingival grafts (FGGs). CONCLUSIONS: APF/V is a successful treatment concept to increase the width of keratinized tissue or attached gingiva around teeth. The addition of autogenous tissue statistically significantly increases the width of attached gingiva. For soft tissue volume augmentation, only limited data are available favoring SCTGs over FGG.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1673,'A systematic review assessing soft tissue augmentation techniques.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1674,'32-49');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1675,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 29498129','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1676,'10.1111/clr.13114');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1677,'OBJECTIVE: To review the dental literature in terms of soft tissue augmentation procedures and their influence on peri-implant health or disease in partially and fully edentulous patients. METHODS: A MEDLINE search from 1966 to 2016 was performed to identify controlled clinical studies comparing soft tissue grafting versus no soft tissue grafting (maintenance) or two types of soft tissue grafting procedures at implant sites. The soft tissue grafting procedures included either an increase of keratinized tissue or an increase of the thickness of the peri-implant mucosa. Studies reporting on the peri-implant tissue health, as assessed by bleeding or gingival indices, were included in the review. The search was complemented by an additional hand search of all selected full-text articles and reviews published between 2011 and 2016. The initial search yielded a total number of 2,823 studies. Eligible studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria (finally included: four studies on gain of keratinized tissue; six studies on gain of mucosal thickness) and quality assessments conducted. Meta-analyses were applied whenever possible. RESULTS: Soft tissue grafting procedures for gain of keratinized tissue resulted in a significantly greater improvement of gingival index values compared to maintenance groups (with or without keratinized tissue) [n = 2; WMD = 0.863; 95% CI (0.658; 1.067); p < .001]. For final marginal bone levels, statistically significant differences were calculated in favor of an apically positioned flap (APF) plus autogenous grafts versus all control treatments (APF alone; APF plus a collagen matrix; maintenance without intervention [with or without residual keratinized tissue]) [n = 4; WMD = -0.175 mm; 95% CI: (-0.313; -0.037); p = .013]. Soft tissue grafting procedures for gain of mucosal thickness did not result in significant improvements in bleeding indices over time, but in significantly less marginal bone loss over time [WMD = 0.110; 95% CI: 0.067; 0.154; p < .001] and a borderline significance for marginal bone levels at the study endpoints compared to sites without grafting. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this review, it was concluded that soft tissue grafting procedures result in more favorable peri-implant health: (i) for gain of keratinized mucosa using autogenous grafts with a greater improvement of bleeding indices and higher marginal bone levels; (ii) for gain of mucosal thickness using autogenous grafts with significantly less marginal bone loss.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1678,'Effects of soft tissue augmentation procedures on peri-implant health or disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1679,'671-678');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1680,'2018-07-00 2018 Jul');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1681,replace('Number: 7\nPMID: 29806181 \nPMCID: PMC6099353','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1682,'10.1111/clr.13258');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1683,'OBJECTIVE: To volumetrically compare peri-implant mid-facial soft tissue changes in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone, with or without a connective tissue graft. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty patients were included. All implants were placed immediately after extraction. After randomization, in one group, a connective tissue graft (test group, n = 30) was inserted at the buccal aspect of the implant. The other group (control group, n = 30) received no connective tissue graft. Clinical parameters, digital photographs and conventional impressions were obtained before extraction (T(pre) ) and at 12 months following definitive crown placement (T(12) ). The casts were digitized by a laboratory scanner, and a volumetric analysis was performed between T(pre) and T(12) . RESULTS: Twenty-five patients in each group were available for analysis at T(12) . Volumetric change, transformed to a mean (±SD) change in thickness, was -0.68 ± 0.59 mm (test) and -0.49 ± 0.54 mm (control) with a non-significant difference between groups (p = .189). The mid-facial mucosa level was significantly different between both groups (p = .014), with a mean (±SD) change of +0.20 ± 0.70 mm (test) and -0.48 ± 1.13 mm (control). The Pink Esthetic Score was similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a CTG in immediately placed and provisionalized implants in the aesthetic zone did not result in less mucosal volume loss after 12 months, leading to the assumption that a CTG cannot fully compensate for the underlying facial bone loss, although a significantly more coronally located mid-facial mucosa level was found when a CTG was performed.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1684,'Immediate placement and provisionalization of implants in the aesthetic zone with or without a connective tissue graft: A 1-year randomized controlled trial and volumetric study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1685,'183-194');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1686,replace('Place: United States\nPMID: 31215112','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1687,'10.1111/jcpe.13131');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1688,'BACKGROUND: The transition from a tooth requiring extraction to its replacement (with a dental implant) requires a series of clinical decisions related to timing, approach, materials, cost-effectiveness and the assessment of potential harm and patient preference. This workshop focused on the formulation of evidence-based consensus statements and clinical recommendations. METHODS: Four systematic reviews covering the areas of alveolar ridge preservation/bone grafting, immediate early and delayed implant placement and alveolar bone augmentation at the time of implant placement in a healed ridge formed the basis of the deliberations. The level of evidence supporting each consensus statement and its strength was described using a modification of the GRADE tool. RESULTS: The evidence base for each of the relevant topics was assessed and summarized in 23 consensus statements and 12 specific clinical recommendations. The group emphasized that the evidence base mostly relates to single tooth extraction/replacement; hence, external validity/applicability to multiple extractions requires careful consideration. The group identified six considerations that should assist clinicians in clinical decision-making: presence of infection, inability to achieve primary stability in the restoratively driven position, presence of a damaged alveolus, periodontal phenotype, aesthetic demands and systemic conditions. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial and expanding evidence base is available to assist clinicians with clinical decision-making related to the transition from a tooth requiring extraction to its replacement with a dental implant. More high-quality research is needed for the development of evidence-based clinical guidelines.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1689,'Management of the extraction socket and timing of implant placement: Consensus report and clinical recommendations of group 3 of the XV European Workshop in Periodontology.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1690,'29 Suppl 16');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1691,'69-77');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1692,replace('Place: Denmark\nPMID: 30328189','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1693,'10.1111/clr.13342');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1694,'OBJECTIVES: The aim of Working Group 1 was to address the influence of different local (implant length, diameter, and design) and systemic (medications) factors on clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes in implant dentistry. Focused questions on (a) short posterior dental implants (≤6 mm), (b) narrow diameter implants, (c) implant design (tapered compared to a non-tapered implant design), and (d) medication-related dental implant failures were addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four systematic reviews were prepared in advance of the Consensus Conference and were discussed among the participants of Group 1. Consensus statements, clinical recommendations, and recommendations for future research were based on structured group discussions until consensus was reached among the entire expert Group 1. The statements were then presented and accepted following further discussion and modifications as required by the plenary. RESULTS: Short implants (≤6 mm) revealed a survival rate ranging from 86.7% to 100%, whereas standard implant survival rate ranged from 95% to 100% with a follow-up from 1 to 5 years. Short implants demonstrated a higher variability and a higher Risk Ratio [RR: 1.24 (95% CI: 0.63, 2.44, p = 0.54)] for failure compared to standard implants. Narrow diameter implants (NDI) have been classified into three categories: Category 1: Implants with a diameter of <2.5 mm ("Mini-implants"); Category 2: Implants with a diameter of 2.5 mm to <3.3 mm; Category 3: Implants with a diameter of 3.3 mm to 3.5 mm. Mean survival rates were 94.7 ± 5%, 97.3 ± 5% and 97.7 ± 2.3% for category 1, 2 and 3. Tapered versus non-tapered implants demonstrated only insignificant differences regarding clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes. The intake of certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors is associated with a statistically significant increased implant failure rate. The intake of bisphosphonates related to the treatment of osteoporosis was not associated with an increased implant failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that short implants (≤6 mm) are a valid option in situations of reduced bone height to avoid possible morbidity associated with augmentation procedures; however, they reveal a higher variability and lower predictability in survival rates. Narrow diameter implants with diameters of 2.5 mm and more demonstrated no difference in implant survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. In contrast, it is concluded that narrow diameter implants with diameters of less than 2.5 mm exhibited lower survival rates compared to standard diameter implants. It is further concluded that there are no differences between tapered versus non-tapered dental implants. Certain medications such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and proton pump inhibitors showed an association with a higher implant failure rate.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1695,'Group 1 ITI Consensus Report: The influence of implant length and design and medications on clinical and patient-reported outcomes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1696,'165-175');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1697,replace('Number: 1\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 29484712','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1698,'10.1111/prd.12209');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1699,'In the esthetic zone, in the case of tooth extraction, the clinician is often confronted with a challenge regarding the optimal decision-making process for providing a solution using dental implants. This is because, after tooth extraction, alveolar bone loss and structural and compositional changes of the covering soft tissues, as well as morphological alterations, can be expected. Ideally, the therapeutic plan starts before tooth extraction and it offers three options: spontaneous healing of the extraction socket; immediate implant placement; and techniques for preserving the alveolar ridge at the site of tooth removal. The decision-making process mainly depends on: (i) the chosen time-point for implant placement and the ability to place a dental implant; (ii) the quality and quantity of soft tissue in the region of the extraction socket; (iii) the remaining height of the buccal bone plate; and (iv) the expected rates of implant survival and success. Based on scientific evidence, three time-periods for alveolar ridge preservation are described in the literature: (i) soft-tissue preservation with 6-8 weeks of healing after tooth extraction (for optimization of the soft tissues); (ii) hard- and soft-tissue preservation with 4-6 months of healing after tooth extraction (for optimization of the hard and soft tissues); and (iii) hard-tissue preservation with > 6 months of healing after tooth extraction (for optimization of the hard tissues).');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1700,'Alveolar ridge preservation in the esthetic zone.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1701,'2021-02-12 2021 Feb 12');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1702,replace('Place: United States\nPMID: 33616565','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1703,'10.11607/ijp.6999');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1704,'PURPOSE: To assess the clinical, technical, and esthetic outcomes of directly veneered zirconia abutments cemented onto non-original titanium bases over 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 healthy patients with a single missing tooth in the maxilla or mandible (incisors, canines, or premolars) received a two-piece implant with a screw-retained veneered zirconia restoration extraorally cemented on a titanium base abutment. Baseline measurements and follow-up examinations were performed at 6 months, 1 year, and 3 years following loading. Radiographic, clinical, technical, and esthetic parameters were assessed. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Mean marginal bone levels measured 0.54 ± 0.39 mm (median: 0.47 mm, range: 0.07 mm to 1.75 mm) at baseline and 0.52 ± 0.39 mm (median: 0.39 mm, range: 0.06 mm to 1.33 mm) at 3 years. Mean probing depth around the implants increased from 3.0 ± 0.6 mm at baseline to 3.8 ± 0.8 mm at 3 years (P = .001). Bleeding on probing changed from 27.1% ± 20.7% (baseline) to 51.5% ± 26.1% (3 years) (P = .001). The mean plaque control record amounted to 11.1% ± 21.2% (baseline) and 14.4% ± 13.89% (3 years) (P = .261). Two implants were lost at 3.5 and 30 months postloading due to peri-implantitis, resulting in a 91.7% implant survival rate. Patient satisfaction was high at 3 years. CONCLUSION: Zirconia restorations cemented onto the tested non-original titanium bases should not be recommended for daily clinical use, as they were associated with significant increases in BOP and PD values and varying marginal bone levels 3 years after placement.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1705,'Zirconia reconstructions cemented on non-original titanium bases may result in increased bleeding on probing, probing depth values and varying mean marginal bone levels.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1706,'© 2020 by the American College of Prosthodontists.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1707,'430-439');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1708,'2021-06-00 2021 Jun');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1709,replace('Number: 5\n2 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32864812','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1710,'10.1111/jopr.13246');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1711,'PURPOSE: To evaluate the color stability of CAD/CAM complete denture resins. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 176 resin specimens were manufactured from conventional heat-polymerizing (pink: CON(HCP) : n = 16; tooth-shade: CON(HCT) : n = 16), CAD/CAM subtractively manufactured (pink: WI(MP) : n = 16, AV(MP) : n = 16, ME(MP) : n = 16, PO(MP) : n = 16; tooth-shade: AV(MT) : n = 16, ME(MT) : n = 16, PO(MT) : n = 16), and additively manufactured (pink: ND(RPP) : n = 16; tooth-shade: ND(RPT) : n = 16) denture resins; four different aging processes (thermal cycling, distilled water, red-wine, and coffee) were used. A spectrophotometer evaluated the color change (ΔE) using two modes of measurements (specular component included (ΔE(SCI) ) and specular component excluded (ΔE(SCE) )) recorded at baseline (T(0) ) and at day#30 (T(30) ). ANOVA and post hoc tests were used for statistical analysis (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Additively manufactured resins (ND(RPP) and ND(RPT) ) demonstrated significant ΔE in comparison to the other groups in all aging media (p < 0.001). WI(MP) demonstrated higher ΔE(SCI) in comparison to the other subtractively manufactured groups in distilled water (p < 0.001). In red-wine, AV(MT) revealed significantly more ΔE(SCE) than PO(MT) (p = 0.039). In coffee, the ΔE(SCE) was higher for CON(HCT) than ME(MT) (p = 0.026) and PO(MT) (p = 0.011). Similarly, in coffee the ΔE(SCE) for AV(MT) was higher than PO(MT) (p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Additively manufactured denture resins demonstrated the maximum color change compared to conventional heat-polymerized and CAD/CAM subtractively manufactured denture resins. Furthermore, CAD/CAM subtractively manufactured denture resins were not inferior to conventional resins in terms of color stability.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1712,'CAD/CAM Complete Denture Resins: An In Vitro Evaluation of Color Stability.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1713,'176-185');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1714,'Journal of prosthodontic research');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1715,'2212-4632 1883-1958');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1716,'2021-06-30 2021 Jun 30');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1717,replace('Number: 2\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 32938878','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1718,'J Prosthodont Res');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1719,'10.2186/jpr.JPOR_2019_534');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1720,'PURPOSE: Polymers are used in dentistry on a daily basis due to their mechanical, functional and aesthetic properties. However, such biomaterials are subject to deterioration in the oral environment. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the structural properties of five commonly used dental polymers to determine their best clinical indications. METHODS: Four hundred-fifty samples of five dental polymers (polyethylenterephthalat - glycol modified (PG), polymethyl methacrylate (PA), ethylene vinyl acetate(E), polycarbonate (PC), polyetheretherketone (PK) were prepared to investigate their thermal, structural and chemical characteristics using energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), Fourier transform infrared analysis(FTIR), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), differential scanning calorimetry(DSC), thermogravimetric analysis(TGA), X-ray diffraction(XRD), and Shore D hardness test. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA, Tukey''s HSD, and Levene''s tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: PK (87.2) and PA (82.4) displayed the highest hardness values and smooth surfaces, as observed with SEM (p<0.001). Silica was detected in PK, PA, and E by EDS and XRD. The highest glass transition temperature was recorded for PC (145.00±2.00°C) and PK (143.00±1.87°C), while the lowest value was measured for E (50.00±2.12°C)(p<0.001).The highest mass loss was detected for PG (91.40±1.40%) by TGA. CONCLUSIONS: PA and PK polymers can be used for stress-containing treatments due to their mechanical properties. These two materials are also advantageous in terms of plaque accumulation as these polymers reveal smoother surfaces than other groups. Insufficient physical and thermal properties require the use of E with caution and only in limited clinical indications.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1721,'Thermal, structural and morphological characterization of dental polymers for clinical applications.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1722,'2280800020930180');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1723,'Journal of applied biomaterials & functional materials');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1724,'2280-8000');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1725,'2020-12-00 2020 Jan-Dec');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1726,replace('0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32946316','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1727,'J Appl Biomater Funct Mater');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1728,'10.1177/2280800020930180');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1729,'Fiber-reinforced polyester composites have received significant attention in a variety of applications due to their considerable potential due to such characteristics as high strength, stiffness, and modulus. However, one of the most important concerns about polymeric composites is their sensitivity to moisture attack. This work has been conducted to investigate the effects of nanoclay addition on reinforcing glass/polyester composites against water absorption and the resultant deterioration of flexural strength. Therefore, chopped strand mat and woven fiberglass polyester specimens were fabricated by using the hand lay-up technique with varying weight percentages of Cloisite 20A nanoclays (0, 1.5, and 3 wt%) and immersion in water for a time duration of 21 days. The specimens were weighed for the water absorption test. The results showed a remarkable drop in water absorption of the composite samples with the increase of nanoclay content. Moreover, although all the pure and nanocomposite specimens underwent degradation in flexural strength due to the water absorption, the strength was found to significantly increase with increasing the percentage of nanoclay at all immersion periods. The experimental results were confirmed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). SEM images indicated that the presence of nanoclay protected the fiber/matrix interfaces.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1730,'Influence of nanoclays on water uptake and flexural strength of glass-polyester composites.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1731,'403');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1732,replace('Number: 5\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 25419549','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1733,'10.3290/j.jad.a33092');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1734,'Lost in translation?');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1735,'103');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1736,replace('Number: 2\n2 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 24757704','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1737,'10.3290/j.jad.a31870');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1738,'Publish or perish, publish and perish.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1739,'579-593');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1740,'2020-08-00 2020 Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1741,replace('Number: 7\n7 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32548890','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1742,'10.1111/jopr.13212');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1743,'PURPOSE: To review the primary additive manufacturing (AM) technologies used to fabricate metals in implant dentistry and compare them to conventional casting and subtractive methods. METHODS: The literature on metal AM technologies was reviewed, and the AM procedures and their current applications in implant dentistry were collated and described. Collection of published articles about metal AM in dental field data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science searched. All studies related to AM technology description, analysis, and evaluation of applications in implant dentistry, including AM titanium (Ti) dental implants, customized Ti mesh for bone grafting techniques, cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) frameworks for implant impression procedures, and Co-Cr and Ti frameworks for dental implant-supported prostheses were reviewed. RESULTS: Literature has demonstrated the potential of AM technologies to fabricate dental implants, root-analog implants, and functionally graded implants; as well as the ability to fabricate customized meshes for bone grafting procedures. Metal AM technologies provide a reliable method to manufacture frameworks for implant impression procedures. Co-Cr and Ti AM frameworks for implant-supported prostheses provide a clinically acceptable discrepancy at the implant-prostheses interface. CONCLUSIONS: Additional clinical studies are required to assess the long-term clinical performance, biological and mechanical complications, and prosthetic restoration capabilities of additively manufactured dental implants. Moreover, further studies are needed to evaluate their long-term success and survival rates and biological and mechanical complications of AM implant-supported prostheses.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1744,'A Review of the Applications of Additive Manufacturing Technologies Used to Fabricate Metals in Implant Dentistry.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1745,'© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1746,'432-445');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1747,replace('Number: 3\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 32955762','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1748,'10.1111/jerd.12661');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1749,'OBJECTIVE: To review the historical and current periodontal phenotype classifications evaluating methods and characteristics. Moreover, to identify and classify the methods based on periodontal phenotype components. OVERVIEW: Several gingival morphology studies have been frequently associated with different terms used causing confusion among the readers. In 2017, the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions recommended to adopt the term "periodontal phenotype". This term comprises two terms, gingival phenotype (gingival thickness and keratinized tissue width) and bone morphotype (buccal bone plate thickness). Furthermore, gingival morphology has been categorized on "thin-scalloped", "thick-scalloped" and "thick-flat" considering the periodontal biotype. However, by definition, the term phenotype is preferred over biotype. Periodontal phenotype can be evaluated through clinical or radiographic assessments and may be divided into invasive/non-invasive (for gingival thickness), static/functional (for keratinized tissue width), and bi/tridimensional (for buccal bone plate thickness) methods. CONCLUSIONS: "Thin-scalloped," "thick-scalloped," and "thick-flat" periodontal biotypes were identified. These three periodontal biotypes have been considered in the World Workshop but the term periodontal phenotype is recommended. Periodontal phenotype is the combination of the gingival phenotype and the bone morphotype. There are specific methods for periodontal phenotype evaluation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The term periodontal phenotype is currently recommended for future investigations about gingival phenotype and bone morphotype. "Thin-scalloped," "thick-scalloped," and "thick-flat" periodontal phenotypes can be evaluated through specific methods for gingival thickness, keratinized tissue width, and buccal bone plate thickness evaluation.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1750,'Periodontal phenotype: A review of historical and current classifications evaluating different methods and characteristics.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1751,'345-354');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1752,'2020-06-05 2020 Jun 5');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1753,replace('Number: 3\n10 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 32037387','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1754,'10.4012/dmj.2019-123');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1755,'Additive manufacturing (AM) processes are increasingly used in dentistry. The underlying process is the joining of material layer by layer based on 3D data models. Four additive processes (laser stereolithography, polymer jetting, digital light processing, fused deposition modeling) are mainly used for processing dental polymers. The number of polymer materials that can be used for AM in dentistry is small compared to other areas. Applications in dentistry using AM are limited (e.g. study models, maxillo-facial prostheses, orthodontic appliances etc.). New and further developments of materials are currently taking place due to the increasing demand for safer and other applications. Biocompatibility and the possibility of using materials not only as temporarily but as definitive reconstructions under oral conditions, mechanically more stable materials where less or no post-processing is needed are current targets in AM technologies. Printing parameters are also open for further development where optical aspects are also important.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1756,'Additive manufacturing of dental polymers: An overview on processes, materials and applications.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1757,'596-606');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1758,replace('Number: 4\n5 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 31965408','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1759,'10.1007/s10266-020-00484-1');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1760,'PEEK has been used in many dental applications except intra-radicular post. The aim of this study is to test polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as a dental post material through tensile bond strength (TBS) and surface roughness (SR), and to compare it with glass-fiber and cast-metal posts. Thus, 60 human maxillary central incisors with a single root were endodontically treated and divided into three groups (n = 20) according to the type of post (Group P: PEEK, Group F: Glass-fiber, Group M: Cast-metal). Appropriate surface treatment was employed for each group and SR was determined by a three-dimensional non-contact profilometer before cementation. All posts were luted to the canal dentin using self-etch resin cement (Panavia F2.0). Pull-out test was performed on a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until failure, and TBS were calculated. One-way ANOVA, Tukey''s HSD, and Pearson chi-squared tests were performed for statistical analyses (α = 0.05). According to the results, group F demonstrated the highest SR (2.93 ± 0.18 µm) and lowest TBS values (10.05 ± 0.53 MPa), while group P exhibited lowest SR (1.37 ± 0.11 µm) and highest TBS values (14.33 ± 0.58 MPa) (p < 0.001). No significant differences in failure modes were identified among groups, mostly adhesive (p = 0.243). As conclusion, PEEK may be a reliable and contemporary option for dental post systems when used with appropriate surface treatment and luting agent. This high-performance polymer may be a novel candidate as a contemporary dental post system due to its superior mechanical, chemical, thermal, and esthetical properties with low risk of fracture.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1761,'Surface characterization and bonding properties of milled polyetheretherketone dental posts.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1762,'569-577');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1763,replace('Number: 4\n1 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 32065311','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1764,'10.1007/s10266-020-00496-x');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1765,'This case-controlled clinical trial was performed on the salivary 8-hydroxyguanosine (8-OHdG) levels in smokers and non-smokers with chronic periodontitis after non-surgical periodontal therapy. Subjects (N = 40) with periodontitis (smokers and non-smokers) and with clinically healthy conditions (smokers and non-smokers) were assigned to this study. At baseline, clinical periodontal parameters (plaque index, gingival index, pocket probing depth and clinical attachment levels) were evaluated. Saliva samples were obtained pre- and post-treatment to quantify the 8-OHdG levels using Elisa technique. Subjects diagnosed with chronic periodontitis with smoking habit (CPs) and non-smokers (CPns) received scaling and root planing. In clinically healthy subjects with smoking habit (CHs) and non-smokers (CHns), only oral hygiene tutoring was performed. All clinical measurements and salivary collection were repeated in a 3-month recall interval. Data were analyzed using Anova, Tukey post hoc test and Mann-Whitney ''U'' tests (P < 0.05). At baseline, CPs and CPns groups showed significantly higher PI, GI, PD and CAL values than those of CHns and CHs (P < 0.001). Baseline salivary levels of 8-OHdG were significantly higher in CPs group (14.775 pg/mL) (P < 0.001) compared to the other groups. All clinical parameters in chronic periodontitis group improved at the 3rd month recall interval, however, with regards to 8-OHdG values, the CP smoker category still had a higher level compared to CP non-smoker. This study reflects an on-going periodontal destructive status in smokers and salivary 8-OHdG levels could be recognized as an oxidative biomarker for determining periodontal tissue destruction.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1766,'Salivary 8-hydroxyguanosine levels in smokers and non-smokers with chronic periodontitis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1767,'Copyright © 2020 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1768,'e93-e108');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1769,replace('Number: 4\n6 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 32035670','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1770,'10.1016/j.dental.2020.01.002');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1771,'OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systemic review, conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statement, was to investigate the impact of surface pretreatments on the bonding strength of high performance polymers (HPPs). METHODS: Eight databases were searched through March 2019. Risk of bias was assessed and random effects meta-analyses were applied to analyze mean differences in shear bond strength (SBS) and tensile bond strength (TBS), considering surface pretreatments and bonding agents after 24h and thermocycling. RESULTS: A total of 235 relevant titles and abstracts were found, yielding 11 final selections. Low risk of bias was observed in most studies. For polyetheretherketone (PEEK) specimens, random-effect models showed that, compared to non-treated controls, pretreatments associated with Visio.link® (Bredent, Senden, GE) increased TBS by 26.72MPa (95% confidence interval (CI), 19.69-33.76; p<0.00001) and increased SBS by 4.86MPa (95% CI, 2.61-7.10; p<0.00001). Air abrasion improved SBS by 4.90MPa (95% CI, 3.90-5.90; p<0.00001) (50μm alumina) and 4.51MPa (95% CI, 1.85-7.18; p=0.0009) (silica-coated CoJet). In comparison to non-treated controls, Visio.link® and Signum PEEK Bond® (Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, GE) increased SBS by 33.76MPa (95% CI, 18.72-48.81; p<0.00001) and 33.28MPa (95% CI, 17.48-49.07; p<0.00001), respectively. No differences were found between Visio.link® and Signum PEEK Bond® or Monobond Plus/Heliobond® (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, LH) (p>0.05). Similar results were observed for polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) specimens. SIGNIFICANCE: This review shows improved HPP bonding following the application of various surface pretreatments, including air abrasion and bonding agents.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1772,'Adhesion to high-performance polymers applied in dentistry: A systematic review.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1773,'288-292');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1774,'Journal of oral science');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1775,'1880-4926 1343-4934');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1776,'2020-06-23 2020 Jun 23');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1777,replace('Number: 3\n1 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 32475863','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1778,'J Oral Sci');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1779,'10.2334/josnusd.19-0221');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1780,'The purpose of this study was to determine the depth of cure and the type and amount of monomers released from bulk-fill composites in different curing protocols. Five different composite resins Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior, Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable, SureFil SDR, X-tra Fil, and X-tra base, were used. A light-emitting diode (LED) device was used in 3 different modes (standard, high power, and extra power mode), and a halogen light device was also used as a control. Surface hardness was measured and the depth of cure was calculated. Monomer analysis was performed using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The data were analyzed using Tamhane''s T2 post-hoc test (α = 0.05). The cure depth for all materials except for Filtek Bulk-Fill Posterior (extra power mode) and Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable (high power and extra power modes) was over 80%. Under the conditions of this study, the amount of monomer released from composite resins changed according to the type of composite resin and the light mode used.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1781,'Monomer release from bulk-fill composite resins in different curing protocols.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1782,'526-531');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1783,replace('Number: 4\n4 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-07-29]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 31401706','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1784,'10.1007/s10266-019-00446-2');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1785,'The use of monolithic yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia polycrystal (Y-TZP) ceramics in aesthetically critical regions is questionable because of the insufficient translucency and opacity of the restorations. Intrinsic (manufacturing process) and extrinsic factors (laboratory procedures and clinical factors) can affect the translucency of monolithic zirconia. In this narrative review, the clinical factors (thickness, cementation type, colour of the monolithic zirconia, surface finishing methods and wear, dental background, cement colour, low temperature degradation) affecting the translucency of monolithic Y-TZP ceramics were reported.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1786,'Clinical factors affecting the translucency of monolithic Y-TZP ceramics.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1787,'Copyright © 2020 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1788,'125');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1789,'918-923');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1790,replace('Number: 6\n1 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32493568','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1791,'10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.019');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1792,'STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Previous studies have analyzed factors influencing intraoral scanner accuracy; however, how the intraoral scan body design affects the implant position on the virtual definitive cast is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the discrepancies of the implant replica positions of the virtual definitive implant cast obtained by using 3 different scan body designs when performing a digital scan. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A partially edentulous typodont with 3 implant replicas (Implant Replica RP Branemark system; Nobel Biocare Services AG) was prepared. Three groups were determined based on the scan body system evaluated: SB-1 (Elos Accurate Nobel Biocare), SB-2 (NT Digital Implant Technology), and SB-3 (Dynamic Abutment). Each scan body was positioned on each implant replica of the typodont, and was digitized by using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element; Cadent) as per the manufacturer''s scanning protocol at 1000 lux illuminance. A standard tessellation language (STL) file was obtained. Before the scan bodies were removed from the typodont, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM Contura G2 10/16/06 RDS; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH) was used to measure the scan body positions on the x-, y-, and z-axis. The linear and angular discrepancies between the position of the scan bodies on the typodont and STL file were calculated by using the best fit technique with a specific program (Calypso; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH). The procedure was repeated until 10 STL files were obtained per group. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were not normally distributed. The data were analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05). RESULTS: The coordinate measuring machine was unable to measure the scan body positions of the magnetically retained SB-3 group because of its mobility when palpating at the smallest pressure possible. Therefore, this group was excluded. No significant differences were found in the linear discrepancies between the SB-1 and SB-2 groups (P>.05). The most accurate scan body position was obtained on the z-axis. However, the SB-1 group revealed a significantly higher XZ angular discrepancy than the SB-2 group (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The scan body systems tested (SB-1 and SB-2 groups) accurately transferred the linear implant positions to the virtual definitive implant cast. However, significant differences were observed in the XZ angular implant positions between the scan body systems analyzed.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1793,'Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1794,'Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1795,'110');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1796,'103892');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1797,'Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1798,'1878-0180');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1799,replace('2 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-02]\nPlace: Netherlands\nPMID: 32778529','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1800,'J Mech Behav Biomed Mater');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1801,'10.1016/j.jmbbm.2020.103892');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1802,'AIM: Bioceramic-containing root canal sealers are the most recently introduced sealers in endodontics. The present work reported experiments on a bioceramic-based root canal sealer with the objective of improving its physiochemical properties via reinforcement with each one of the three different nanomaterials: multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTS), titanium carbide (TC) or boron nitride (BN) in two weight percentages (1 wt% and 2 wt%). METHODOLOGY: Each nanomaterial was added to a definite weight of BioRoot root canal sealer (BioRoot™ RCS, Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France). Three composite groups of each weight percentage were prepared for evaluation: BioRoot/MWCNTS, BioRoot/TC and BioRoot/BN. The initial and final setting times, solubility, elution and pH values of the freshly-mixed and set samples were evaluated and compared to pristine BioRoot™ RCS. Setting times were evaluated using Gilmore needles. Solubility and elution were determined after immersion in water for 24 h. Scanning electron microscopy was used to examine the microstructure of the composite materials. RESULTS: The 1-wt. % composites possessed significantly shorter initial and final setting times compared with the pristine BioRoot™ RCS (p < 0.05). The 2-wt.% composites exhibited longer initial setting times but significantly shorter final setting times than BioRoot RCS (p < 0.05). Most of the composites had relatively lower solubility and elution profiles, with BioRoot/1-wt.% TC and BioRoot/1-wt.% BN being the lowest (p < 0.05). BioRoot™ RCS and all composites exhibited an alkaline pH profile over a period of 4 weeks and a significantly higher alkaline pH (p < 0.05) was recorded for BioRoot/1-wt.% and Bioroot/2-wt.% TC. CONCLUSIONS: A bioceramic-containing root canal sealer (BioRootTM RCS) with a shorter setting time, an alkaline pH profile, and a relatively lower solubility may be developed by incorporation of nanomaterials.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1803,'Physiochemical properties of a bioceramic-based root canal sealer reinforced with multi-walled carbon nanotubes, titanium carbide and boron nitride biomaterials.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1804,'448-454');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1805,replace('Number: 6\n3 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 31086853','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1806,'10.3290/j.qi.a42477');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1807,'OBJECTIVE: This prospective clinical study evaluated the clinical performance of one-, two- and multi-surface composite resin inlays over a 12-year period on premolars and molars. METHOD AND MATERIALS: One clinician placed 113 indirect composite resin inlays (Signum, Heraeus Kulzer) in 30 patients that were bonded using a three-step bonding system and composite resin luting cement. Evaluations were made at 3 and 12 years by another clinician who was not involved in the placement of the restorations, using the modified US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Data were analyzed using a nonparametric statistical test (Mann-Whitney U test) followed by Bonferroni correction (alpha = .05). RESULTS: Fourteen patients could not be followed, yielding to the follow-up of 99 restorations. After 12 years, compared to the 3-year follow-up, tooth integrity, secondary caries, and sensitivity criteria showed significant change, while other parameters did not show significant difference (P > .05). Parameters such as loss of marginal integrity, loss of restoration integrity, loss of surface polish, and secondary caries received more frequently delta scores. At the 3-year follow-up, the clinical performance of one- or two-surface inlays did not show significant difference from multi-surface ones (P = .6317), but at the 12-year follow-up, the results were more favorable for multi-surface inlays. Overall, the failure rate at 12 years was 12%. CONCLUSIONS: Adhesively bonded indirect composite resin inlays showed acceptable long-term clinical results in terms of function, but surface and margin characteristics changed over time.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1808,'Twelve-year longitudinal clinical evaluation of bonded indirect composite resin inlays.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1809,'15-23');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1810,replace('Number: 1\n124 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Germany\nPMID: 22065247','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1811,'10.1007/s00784-011-0636-6');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1812,'Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is commonly used for conditioning the glass ceramics either prior to cementation or for intraoral repair in prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The present study offers a review of chemical properties of HF used, highlight the possible hazardous effects of this agent, and to recommend the treatment approach for potential risks. Available published information documented in PubMed, Medline, and Picarta literature databases was reviewed. Additional information was derived from scientific reports, medical and chemical textbooks, handbooks, product information, manufacturers'' instructions, Internet web sites of the HF manufacturers. No report was found on the incidence of the hazardous effects of HF in dentistry. Reports from other fields presented incidences of acute and chronic symptoms in exposure to HF. While acute symptoms include skin or nail burns, chronic ones involve systemic toxicity, eye injuries, inhalation and ingestion-related symptoms that can be even fatal. HF can be harmful and particularly aggressive to soft tissues, but symptoms may not be apparent immediately after exposure. The hazardous effects are not based on the pH value, but on the toxicity of HF. Potential hazards of HF known from other applications than dentistry should be considered also in dental applications. Especially the clinicians, who often deal with adhesive cementation or repair of glass ceramics, should take necessary precautions for possible hazards of HF.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1813,'Possible hazardous effects of hydrofluoric acid and recommendations for treatment approach: a review.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1814,'109');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1815,'433-439');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1816,replace('Number: 2\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPMID: 33128650 \nPMCID: PMC7954706','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1817,'10.1007/s10266-020-00558-0');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1818,'This study aims to compare the degree of conversion of two different curing protocols used during adhesive cementation. The following resin luting agents were tested: Hri Flow (MF) and pre-heated Hri Micerium (MH); light-cure Nexus Third Generation (NX3L) and dual-cure Nexus Third Generation (NX3D); dual cured RelyX Ultimate (RXU) and light-cure RelyX Veneers (RXL). For each tested material, ten samples were prepared and divided into two groups which had different curing protocols (P1 and P2): in P1, samples were cured for 40 s; in P2, samples were cured for 5 s, and then, after 20 s, cured again for additional 40 s. The degree of conversion (DC) was evaluated both during the first 5 min of the curing phase and after 1, 2, 7, 14 and 28 days (p = 0.05). Different trends were observed in DC values after 5 min by comparing P1 and P2. In both P1 and P2, DC decreased as follows, MH > MF > NX3L > RXL > RXU > NX3D. There were significant differences of DC values among all resin luting agents (p < 0.05) in P1, while no significant differences existed between MH and MF, and NX3L and RXL in P2. At 1, 2, 7, 14 and 28 days the light curing luting agents had a higher DC than the dual luting agents (p < 0.05). P1 and P2 were not statistically different at each time point (p > 0.05). Both P1 and P2 protocols let achieve an acceptable DC after 28 days. The tested P2 can be safely used to lute indirect restorations, simplifying the removal of cement excesses.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1819,'Comparison of two curing protocols during adhesive cementation: can the step luting technique supersede the traditional one?');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1820,'Copyright © 2020 Tan F. Eyüboğlu et al.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1821,'2020');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1822,'7912638');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1823,replace('0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPMID: 33062699 \nPMCID: PMC7539075','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1824,'10.1155/2020/7912638');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1825,'This study evaluated the long-term clinical outcomes of single-visit root canal treatments with apical enlargement on patients with necrotic pulp tissue retrospectively. A total of 137 teeth with necrotic pulp tissue which underwent single-visit root canal treatments were included. The root canals were shaped up until the apical constriction, which was determined by an apex locator. The outcomes were evaluated by two independent and calibrated endodontists clinically and radiographically. Teeth were dichotomized into healed (PAI ≤ 2, no signs or symptoms) and nonhealed (PAI > 2, with/without signs or symptoms) groups. Each patients'' preoperative PAI and lesion size were recorded to evaluate the preoperative periapical status as well as several other prognostic factors. Statistical analyses were performed (p = 0.05) on ninety teeth. The mean observation time was 60 months. Out of ninety teeth, 87 (96.7%) were healed and 3 (3.3%) were nonhealed. No correlations were found between the prognostic factors and the outcomes (p > 0.05). Cohen''s kappa and Gwet''s agreement coefficient scores between the preoperative PAI scores and preoperative lesion sizes showed good agreements, with values of 0.834 and 0.898, respectively. Apical enlargement is a viable treatment option for single-visit root canal treatments.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1826,'Radiographic and Clinical Findings of Single-Visit Root Canal Treatments with Apical Enlargement in Necrotic Teeth: A Retrospective Cohort Study.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1827,'932-939');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1828,replace('Number: 6\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32694021','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1829,'10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.05.003');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1830,'STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Materials possessing fluorescent properties are assumed to emit sufficient visible light to change tooth color under daylight illumination. Fluorescent and nonfluorescent glaze pastes are available to finish the surface of a pressed lithium disilicate restoration. However, the effect of a fluorescent-glaze layer on the final color of the restoration remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the color dimensions of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic with different thicknesses and different surface treatments under daylight (D65) illumination conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 120 pressed lithium disilicate glass-ceramic disks were fabricated with 4 different thicknesses: 0.7, 1.2, 1.7, and 2.2 mm. In each thickness, 3 different subgroups were created based on the surface treatment performed (n=10): polished (NG), clear glaze (CG), and fluorescent glaze (FG). For the NG group, disks were polished with 180-, 320-, 600-, 800-, and 1400-grit SiC papers and a polishing machine. For the glazed groups, the CG and FG groups, the specimens were polished with 180-grit SiC papers and the same polishing machine. After the polishing sequence, the final thickness was verified in all groups by using digital calipers (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 mm). Additionally, 20 μL of clear glaze or fluorescent glaze was applied on the CG and FL groups by using an electronic positive displacement repeating pipette. The glaze layer was crystallized in a furnace according to the manufacturer recommendations. Color measurements in the CIELab coordinates were made with a spectrometer coupled to an integrating sphere and a standardized photography gray card as a background. Color difference (ΔE) values were calculated by using the CIE76 and CIEDE2000 formulas. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were normally distributed. Two-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons were used to analyze the data (α=.05). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found among the groups for the L∗, a∗, and b∗ values for the different ceramic thicknesses and surface finishing treatments evaluated (P<.001), except for the b∗ value between the FG and CG groups (P=.988). The L∗ value on the polished group was significantly higher than that on the glazed specimens, followed by the fluorescent-glazed and then by the clear-glazed specimens (P<.001). The ΔE values using the CIE76 formula varied from 0.87 to 2.76 among specimen groups and from 0.32 to 2.34 using the CIEDE2000 among the tested groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ceramic thickness and surface finishing treatment affected all color dimensions (L∗, a∗, and b∗ values) of lithium disilicate ceramic under daylight conditions. These differences resulted in a perceptible but acceptable color mismatch. The value (L∗ color dimension) of the lithium disilicate ceramic was higher on fluorescent-glazed than on not-fluorescent-glazed specimens.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1831,'Effect of fluorescent and nonfluorescent glaze pastes on lithium disilicate pressed ceramic color at different thicknesses.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1832,'Copyright (c) 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1833,'137');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1834,'615-622.e3');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1835,'1097-6752 0889-5406');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1836,replace('Number: 5\n87 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 20451780','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1837,'10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.12.021');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1838,'INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to systematically review the available literature regarding in-vitro orthodontic shear bond strength testing and to analyze the influence of test conditions on bond strength. METHODS: Our data sources were Embase and Medline. Relevant studies were selected based on predefined criteria. Study test conditions that might influence in-vitro bond strength were independently assessed by 2 observers. Studies reporting a minimum number of test conditions were included for meta-analysis by using a multilevel model with 3 levels, with author as the highest level, study as the second level, and specimens in the study as the lowest level. The primary outcome measure was bond strength. RESULTS: We identified 121 relevant studies, of which 24 were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic drawbacks of the excluded studies were generally related to inadequate reporting of test conditions and specimen storage. The meta-analysis demonstrated that 3 experimental conditions significantly affect in-vitro bond strength testing. Although water storage decreased bond strength on average by 10.7 MPa, each second of photopolymerization time and each millimeter per minute of greater crosshead speed increased bond strength by 0.077 and 1.3 MPa, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Many studies on in-vitro orthodontic bond strength fail to report test conditions that could significantly affect their outcomes.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1839,'In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1840,'© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1841,'472-479');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1842,replace('Number: 5\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 32369271','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1843,'10.1111/jerd.12591');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1844,'OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of simulated endodontic access preparation on the failure loads of lithium disilicate crowns and resin-matrix ceramic (RMC) crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty maxillary first premolar crowns were manufactured by using four different CAD/CAM blocks (n = 20): lithium disilicate (LD; IPS e.max CAD), resin nanoceramic (RNC; Lava Ultimate), flexible nanaoceramic (FNC; GC Cerasmart), and polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC; VITA Enamic). Half of each group was accessed and repaired to simulate endodontic treatment. After cyclic loading, all specimens were loaded to failure. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey-HSD test (α = .05). RESULTS: The load to failure results showed significant differences for material types (P < .001), but not for endodontic access simulation (P = .09). The highest and lowest mean failure loads were obtained for LD (1546 N) and PIC (843 N), respectively. CONCLUSION: The endodontic access preparation was not found to affect the fracture strength of LD and RMC crowns. The LD showed higher fracture strength than RMC crowns. Even though significant differences were noted for failure loads regarding different crown materials, all could reasonably withstand masticatory forces. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The endodontic access preparation through a restoration is known to be a common challenge in clinical practice. Maintaining a repaired LD or RMC crown is feasible and replacement may not be necessary.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1845,'Effect of endodontic access simulation on the fracture strength of lithium-disilicate and resin-matrix ceramic CAD-CAM crowns.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1846,'237-242');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1847,replace('3 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Denmark\nPMID: 30306691','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1848,'10.1111/clr.13302');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1849,'OBJECTIVES: The tasks of this working group were to evaluate the existing evidence on the efficiency and efficacy of the digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of fixed implant reconstructions, to assess the performance of all-ceramic fixed implant reconstructions and, finally, to evaluate the outcomes of internally and externally connected implant abutments and reconstructions. METHODS: Four reviews were available analyzing the current literature on the respective topics. One review dealt with the efficiency and efficacy of digital and conventional fabrication workflows. Two reviews analyzed the outcomes of all-ceramic fixed implant reconstructions, one focusing on single-implant reconstructions and the other evaluating multiple-unit implant fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). The fourth review evaluated the clinical outcome on external, respectively, internal implant-abutment connections. These reviews were the basis for the discussions within the group and at the plenary sessions. RESULTS: The present consensus report gives the consensus statements, the clinical recommendations, and the implications for future research as discussed and approved by the plenum of the consensus conference. The four manuscripts by Mühlemann et al., Rabel et al., Pieralli et al., and Pjetursson et al. are published as part of the journal supplement of the present EAO consensus conference.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1850,'Reconstructive aspects: Summary and consensus statements of group 3. The 5(th) EAO Consensus Conference 2018.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1851,'Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1852,'101');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1853,'1321-1328');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1854,replace('Number: 7\n34 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 23661560','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1855,'10.1002/jbm.b.32945');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1856,'Microorganisms from the oral cavity may settle at the implant-abutment interface (IAI). As a result, tissue inflammation could occur around these structures. The databases MEDLINE/PubMed and PubMed Central were used to identify articles published from 1981 through 2012 related to the microbial colonization in the implant-abutment gap and its consequence in terms of crest bone loss and osseointegration. The following considerations could be put forward, with respect to the clinical importance of IAI: (a) the space present at the IAI seems to allow bacterial leakage to occur, in spite of the size of this space; (b) bacterial leakage seems to occur at the IAI, irrespective of the type of connection. More studies are necessary to clarify the relationship between leakage at IAI and abutment connection designs; (c) losses at the peri-implant bone crests cannot be related to the IAI size, since few studies have shown no relationship. Also, the microbial leakage at the IAI cannot be related to the bone crest loss, since there are no articles reporting this relationship; remains controversial the influence of the IAI position on the bone crest losses.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1857,'Implant-abutment gap versus microbial colonization: Clinical significance based on a literature review.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1858,'69');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1859,'148-152');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1860,'Minerva stomatologica');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1861,'1827-174X 0026-4970');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1862,replace('Number: 3\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Italy\nPMID: 32610723','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1863,'Minerva Stomatol');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1864,'10.23736/S0026-4970.19.04286-9');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1865,'BACKGROUND: To compare the image quality of two different digital imaging systems; one photostimulable phosphor plate system (PSP) and a direct digital radiography system with CMOS imaging sensor; via evaluating contrast resolution among four different exposure times. METHODS: Endodontically treated incisor teeth embedded in paraffin blocks are aligned next to a 99.5% Al wedge and exposed for 0.8, 0.1,0.125 and 0.16 seconds using both the CMOS and PSP systems. Using ImageJ software, 5 isometric and isogridded ROI from each root filling area and isometric ROI from the Al stepwedge were calculated. RESULTS: Evaluation of the total of 120 images displayed that PSP system produced significantly higher contrast resolution (P<0.05) in regard to pixel values than the CMOS. The CMOS system was non- responsive to increasing dose (P=0.000). Regarding the EqAl values, no significant difference was determined between groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The contrast resolution was higher using the PSP system. It can be estimated that, filling material will be more obvious under lower doses using PSP.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1866,'Comparison of two digital intraoral radiography imaging systems as a function of contrast resolution and exposure time.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1867,'651-655');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1868,replace('Number: 8\n1 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 32463965','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1869,'10.1111/jopr.13205');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1870,'PURPOSE: To compute the effect of ambient light illuminance settings on the mesh quality of the digital scans accomplished in a subject. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A subject was recruited. The maxillary dentition did not present any dental restoration. A prosthodontist recorded different complete-arch maxillary digital scans by using an IOS (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) under 4 different illuminance light conditions namely chair light at 10,000-lux illuminance (CL group), room light at 1000-lux illuminance (RL group), natural light at 500-lux illuminance (NL group), and no light at 0-lux luminosity (ZL group). Ten digital scans for each group were consecutively obtained. Mesh quality was examined using the iso2mesh MATLAB package. Shapiro-Wilk test revealed a nonnormally distributed data. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA, and pair-wise comparison were selected to evaluate the data (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Significant differences in mesh quality values were measured among the groups (p < 0.001). Pair-wise comparisons revealed that significant difference was found across all pairs of lighting groups, except for the RL-NL comparison (p = 0.279). However, the CL condition obtained the highest mean values, followed by RL and NL groups, and the lowest mean values were obtained on the ZL lighting condition. CONCLUSIONS: Chair light at 10,000-lux illuminance condition is recommended to maximize the quality mesh values of the IOS system tested (TRIOS 3; 3Shape).');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1871,'Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Lighting Conditions on the Mesh Quality of an Intraoral Scanner.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1872,'448-457');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1873,'2015-08-00 2015 Aug');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1874,replace('Number: 4\n40 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 26035377','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1875,'10.1097/ID.0000000000000285');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1876,'PURPOSE: To review the literature on high-performance polymeric (HPP) materials used as medical and oral implants and make comparisons with the commonly used titanium. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Original scientific articles published in English in MEDLINE (PubMed-NCBI) and Picarta literature databases between January 01, 1995 and June 01, 2013 were included in this review. Additional information was derived from scientific reports, medical and chemical textbooks, handbooks, product information, manufacturers'' instructions, and Internet web sites of the manufacturers. RESULTS: Based on the 7 animal studies and 1 clinical study, HPP polyetheretherketone (PEEK) consisting of a single monomer and featuring a low Young modulus may be advantageous. PEEK seems to lead to less osteolyses and healing problems and no scattering in radiation was observed. Some animal studies showed direct contact between PEEK and the bone with high biocompatibility and no evidence for cytotoxicity, mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, and immunogenicity to the present day. CONCLUSION: The HPPs (ie, PEEK) may carry some potential to be an alternative material for titanium as medical and dental implants. Yet, clinical and animal studies are limited in the field of implantology with such materials.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1877,'High-Performance Polymers and Their Potential Application as Medical and Oral Implant Materials: A Review.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1878,'© 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1879,'62-70');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1880,'Biomaterial investigations in dentistry');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1881,'2641-5275');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1882,replace('Number: 1\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPMID: 32342046 \nPMCID: PMC7170296','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1883,'Biomater Investig Dent');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1884,'10.1080/26415275.2020.1744443');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1885,'Objective: Ceramic inlay-retained fixed partial denture (IRFPD) is a conservative prosthetic option but the mechanical durability of new high strength zirconia reinforced glass ceramic FPDs is not investigated. The purpose of this study was to compare fracture load of 3-unit ceramic FPDs. Materials and methods: Extracted premolars and molars (N = 64) were used to create three test groups (IRFPDs) and one control group (full coverage FPD) (n = 8). The teeth were embedded in PMMA resin with a mesiodistal distance of 6 mm. Premolars had a distal and molars had a mesial inlay preparation (width: 3 mm; height: 4 mm) in the test groups. IRFPDs were made from a zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (VS) or a monolithic zirconia. Zirconia IRFPDs received 2 types of surface treatments: sandblasting (Zr-IRFPD) or internal coating with feldspathic porcelain (ZrC-IRFPD). Control group was made from monolithic zirconia with the same connector size and zirconia surfaces were sandblasted (Zr-FPD). All restorations were cemented using a resin luting cement. After 5000 thermo-cycles, fracture load values (N) were determined with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and Tukey`s post hoc test (p ˂ .05). Result: Fracture load (mean ± SD) of Zr-FPDs, Zr-IRFPDs and ZrC-IRFPDs were 672 ± 183, 672 ± 123 and 638 ± 59, respectively, being not statistically different (p > .05). VS-IRFPD exhibited statically lower values (391 ± 136). The predominant mode of failure was fracture at the connector area in all groups. Conclusion: The fracture load of 3-unit IRFPD was significantly affected by types of ceramics but the retainer design and surface treatment in Zr groups did not show a significant effect.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1886,'Effect of ceramic material type on the fracture load of inlay-retained and full-coverage fixed dental prostheses.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1887,'2020-09-21 2020 Sep 21');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1888,replace('0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: England\nPMID: 32959520','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1889,'10.1111/jerd.12662');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1890,'PURPOSE: To compare the shade matching capabilities between an intraoral scanner (IOS) and a spectrophotometer under different ambient light illuminance conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The shade of three teeth of a patient was obtained using an IOS (IOS group) (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) and a spectrophotometer (DS group) (EasyShade V; Vita Zahnfabrik) at 4 ambient illuminances: 10000-, 1000-, 500-, and 0-lx. Ten shade measurements were documented using Vita Classical and 3D-Master guides per tooth at each lighting condition. Data was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests (α = .05). RESULTS: Significant shade discrepancies were obtained between the groups in different lighting conditions (P < .05). The IOS group presented significant shade discrepancies in different lighting conditions when evaluated using either shade guide, with lower variation under the 0-lx condition. However, the DS group did not present significant shade discrepancies among the different lighting conditions with either shade guide, except for the maxillary lateral incisor measured under 10 000-lx condition using the 3D-Master guide. CONCLUSIONS: Lighting conditions influenced the shade matching competency of an IOS. The IOS tested obtained high variation in the different lighting conditions evaluated and provided a lower shade value than the spectrophotometer. The spectrophotometer revealed high consistency amongst the various lighting conditions evaluated. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Ambient light illuminance conditions can impact the shade matching capabilities of IOSs. The results of this investigation suggest the use of a supplementary instrumental method for assessment of tooth shade.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1891,'Impact of the ambient light illuminance conditions on the shade matching capabilities of an intraoral scanner.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1892,'2020-12-08 2020 Dec 8');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1893,replace('2 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 33290604','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1894,'10.1111/jopr.13302');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1895,'PURPOSE: To measure the chemical composition, Knoop hardness, surface roughness, and composite bond strength of additive manufactured (AM) and conventional interim materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disks were prepared using conventionally (CNV group) and additively manufactured (AM group) materials: CNV-1 (Protemp 4; 3M ESPE), CNV-2 (Anaxdent new outline dentin; Anaxdent), AM-1 (FreePrint temp; Detax), AM-2 (E-Dent 400 C&B MFH; Envisiontec), AM-3 (NextDent C&B MFH; 3D Systems), and AM-4 (Med620 VEROGlaze; Stratasys). Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups (n = 20) for analyzing Knoop hardness (KHN), chemical composition, superficial roughness (Ra), and composite shear bond strength. The first subgroup was exposed to a microhardness test. Subsequently, EDAX analysis was selected to analyze the chemical composition. The second subgroup was selected to measure the superficial roughness (Ra) using a contact profilometer. The third subgroup was used to measured composite shear bond strength using a universal testing apparatus. A digital microscope was used to analyze the fracture mode. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed normally distributed data. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Sidak tests were selected (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Major variances in chemical composition were observed among the specimens. Significant differences in Knoop hardness (p < 0.001) and surface roughness (p < 0.001) were detected. The AM-4 (13.45 ± 2.93 KHN), the CNV-2 (13.35 ± 5.84 KHN), the AM-2 (13.03 ± 3.29 KHN), and the AM-1 (12.55 ± 2.93 KHN) groups obtained the highest Knoop hardness values, followed by the AM-3 and the CNV-1 groups (p < 0.05). The AM-1 group (1.88 ± 1.11 Ra) obtained the highest surface roughness values among the groups, followed by the AM-3 group (0.90 ± 0.14 Ra) (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences in shear bond strength values were found between the groups ranging from 23.18 ± 8.88 MPa to 33.29 ± 9.17 MPa (p = 0.061). All the groups showed a cohesive mode of failure. CONCLUSIONS: The AM interim materials tested had significant chemical composition variations compared to conventional materials. For the mechanical properties evaluated, the AM materials obtained appropriate mechanical properties for use as an interim dental restoration. However, further studies are required to evaluate more extensively its mechanical properties and verify their applicability in the oral cavity, clinical behavior, and biocompatibility.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1896,'Chemical Composition, Knoop Hardness, Surface Roughness, and Adhesion Aspects of Additively Manufactured Dental Interim Materials.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1897,'Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1898,'333-346');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1899,replace('45 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Netherlands\nPMID: 27239815','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1900,'10.1016/j.jmbbm.2016.05.011');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1901,'PURPOSE: The use of implants and their respective suprastructures to replace missing teeth has become a common therapeutic option in dentistry. Prior to their clinical application, all implant components have to demonstrate suitable durability in laboratory studies. Fatigue tests utilising cyclic loading typically simulate masticatory function in vitro. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess the loading conditions used for fatigue testing of implant abutments and to compare the fracture strength of different types of implant abutment and abutment-connection types after cyclic loading. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Original scientific papers published in MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase database in English between 01/01/1970 and 12/31/2014 on cyclic loading on implant abutments were included in this systematic review. The following MeSH terms, search terms and their combinations were used: "in vitro" or "ex vivo" or experimental or laboratory, "dental implants", "implants, experimental", "dental prosthesis, implant-supported", "fatigue", "dental abutments", "cyclic loading", "cyclic fatigue", "mechanical fatigue", "fatigue resistance", "bending moments", and "fracture". Two reviewers performed screening and data abstraction. Only the studies that reported, static fracture values before and after fatigue cycling of implant abutments, were included that allowed comparison of aging effect through cyclic loading. Data (N) were analyzed using a weighted linear regression analysis (α=0.05). RESULTS: The selection process resulted in the final sample of 7 studies. In general, loading conditions of the fatigue tests revealed heterogeneity in the sample but a meta-analysis could be performed for the following parameters: a) abutment material, b) implant-abutment connection, and (c) number of fatigue cycles. Mean fracture strength of titanium (508.9±334.6N) and for zirconia abutments (698.6±452.6N) did not show significant difference after cyclic loading (p>0.05). Internal implant-abutment connections demonstrated significantly higher fracture strength after cyclic loading compared to external ones (internal: 774.0±582.3N; external: 481.2±137.5N; p=0.022). The mean fracture strength of all abutment types decreased significantly when number of loading cycles exceeded 1,000,000 cycles (<1×10(-6): 1047.0±751.3N; >1×10(-6): 556.7±317.6N; p=0.032). CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis, favour the use of internal implant-abutment connections in combination with either titanium or zirconia abutment materials. Number of cycles had a significant impact on the fracture strength after cyclic loading.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1902,'Fracture strength of implant abutments after fatigue testing: A systematic review and a meta-analysis.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1903,'Copyright © 2019 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1904,'754-760');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1905,replace('Number: 5\n8 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 31653404','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1906,'10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.001');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1907,'STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Interim dental restorations can be fabricated by using additive manufacturing (AM) technologies. Although dental restoration contours can be easily and accurately fabricated by using computer-aided design (CAD) procedures, protocols for creating predictable color dimensions of AM interim restorations are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare color dimensions of different AM and conventional interim restorative materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Disks (N=420) were fabricated by using either conventionally (CNV group) or additively manufactured (AM group) materials. The CNV group was further divided into the subgroups CNV-1 (Protemp 4; 3M ESPE) and CNV-2 (Anaxdent new outline dentin; Anaxdent). AM subgroups included AM-1 (FreePrint temp; Detax), AM-2 (E-Dent 400; Envisiontec), AM-3 (NextDent C&B; NextDent), AM-4 (NextDent C&B MFH; NextDent), and AM-5 (Med620 VEROGlaze; Stratasys). Color measurements in the CIELab coordinates were made by using a spectrophotometer (VITA EasyShade Advance 4.0; VITA) with a standardized photography gray card as a background under room light conditions (1003 lux). Color difference (ΔE*) values were calculated by using the CIE76 and CIEDE2000 formulas. The data were analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test with nonparametric pairwise comparisons. RESULTS: Owing to a software error, the spectrophotometer was unable to measure the color of any specimens in the AM-5 subgroup, which was consequently excluded from further analysis. Significant differences (P=.001) between 2 manufacturing groups were found based on the L* variable. All subgroups were significantly different from each other for all 3 variables (P<.001). Pairwise comparisons revealed that all groups were significantly different from each other, except for the AM-1 and AM-2 subgroups, compared with the CNV-1 subgroup for the L* color dimension. The ΔE* values calculated by using the CIE76 formula varied from 6.63 to 23.1 and by using the CIEDE2000 formula from 3.43 to 10.21, suggesting a perceptible and unacceptable color mismatch between the CNV and AM groups. CONCLUSIONS: None of the additively manufactured interim materials tested matched the conventional interim materials in all 3 CIELab color dimensions.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1908,'Color dimensions of additive manufactured interim restorative dental material.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1909,'2021-03-31 2021 Mar 31');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1910,replace('Number: 2\n0 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: Japan\nPMID: 33162456','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1911,'10.4012/dmj.2020-007');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1912,'To investigate and analyze the impact of teeth preparation designs and sintering protocol on marginal fit and fracture resistance of monolithic translucent zirconia laminate veneers. A total of 40 extracted intact human maxillary central incisors were assigned into 4 groups (n=10/each group) to investigate 2 variables: (1) the design of tooth preparation (a 1.5 mm incisal reduction with or without palatal chamfer) and (2) the two different sintering programs used for translucent zirconia restoration (standard or speed sintering procedure). Marginal discrepancy was evaluated using a digital microscope. The specimens were loaded to failure in the compression mode, using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Marginal adaptation of monolithic translucent zirconia laminates are affected by both tooth preparation design and sintering protocol. However, resistance to fracture of translucent zirconia laminates has affected mainly by sintering procedure regardless the teeth preparation design used.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1913,'Marginal discrepancy and load to fracture of monolithic zirconia laminate veneers: The effect of preparation design and sintering protocol.');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1914,'Suppl');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1915,'s49-s57');
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1916,replace('Number: Suppl\n3 citations (Semantic Scholar/DOI) [2021-08-16]\nPlace: United States\nPMID: 30118533','\n',char(10)));
INSERT INTO itemDataValues VALUES(1917,'10.11607/prd.ds2018s');
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment