Philippe François

The objective of this study was to detail the monomer composition of resin-based dental materials sold in the market in 2023 and to evaluate the proportion of bisphenol A (BPA)-derivatives in relation to their applications. A search on manufacturers’ websites was performed to reference resin-based dental materials currently on the European market (including the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK). Their monomer composition was determined using material-safety data sheets and was completed by a search on the PubMed database. Among the 543 material compositions exploitable, 382 (70.3%) contained BPA derivatives. Among them, 56.2% contained BisGMA and 28% BisEMA, the most frequently reported. A total of 59 monomers, of which six were BPA derivatives, were found. In total, 309 materials (56.9%) contained UDMA and 292 (53.8%) TEGDMA. Less than one third of materials identified contained no BPA derivatives. These proportions vary a lot depending on their applications, with materials dedicated to the dental care of young populations containing the highest proportions of BPA-derivative monomers. The long-term effects on human health of the different monomers identified including BPA-derivative monomers is a source of concern. For children and pregnant or lactating women arises the question of whether to take a precautionary principle and avoid the use of resin-based dental materials likely to release BPA by opting for alternative materials.

Purpose/objectives Treating intraosseous lesions (IOLs) and interradicular bone lesions (IRLs) is an extremely technical dental procedure in periodontics. Instrumentation of these lesions is often perceived as difficult by students and inexperienced dentists before they perform a certain number of procedures on patients in the clinic. The aim of this article is to evaluate a cost‐effective three‐dimensional (3D)‐printed educational simulator for the periodontal treatment of IOLs/IRLs (including scaling, incisions and sutures). Methods The simulators were first developed digitally, and then manufactured using printable resins and specific materials; finally, they were assembled using different bonding systems. To evaluate the simulators, assessments were gathered from two target populations: undergraduate students and periodontics experts. These individuals tested the simulator and completed a cross‐sectional questionnaire based on a Likert scale with comparative and pedagogical items scored from one to five. The purpose of the questionnaire was to compare our simulator to clinical reality (i.e., operation on human jaws) and to an animal simulator (i.e., simulation of porcine jaws). The results are expressed as the mean and standard deviation and were statistically analyzed with the Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Results Overall, the results were satisfactory for both groups of testers (4.70 and 4.61 out of five for students and experts, respectively, for global satisfaction). Conclusions The overall educational relevance of the simulator designed herein highlights the fact that 3D‐printed educational simulators could enable efficient cognitive‐functional learning for clinical IOL/IRL treatment.