Yellow soft paraffin solid

ObjectiveTo assess the peri-implant soft-tissue and hard-tissue response to monolithic zirconia (ZrO2) compared to porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns (PFMs).MethodsThis report constitutes a pre-specified secondary analysis of this RCT. Eighty-three patients rehabilitated with single-tooth implants in the molar region were originally randomly assigned to receive either a ZrO2 or a PFM restoration. At 6 months, clinical parameters (plaque control record, probing depth, bleeding on probing, width of keratinised mucosa and marginal bone level changes) were recorded at the implant site and the adjacent natural tooth. In addition, a peri-implant soft-tissue biopsy specimen was harvested between the implant site and the adjacent tooth. The number of inflammatory cells and fibroblasts/fibrocytes was evaluated within four regions of interest (oral epithelium, sulcular epithelium, junctional epithelium, connective tissue). Descriptive statistics were arrived at for all outcomes, and differences between prosthetic materials, sites and timepoints were analysed using linear mixed-effects models.ResultsThe present exploratory secondary analysis included 67 patients (37 ZrO2; 30 PFM) with complete 6-month clinical, radiographic and histological data. Clinical parameters at both implant and adjacent tooth sites remained generally stable from baseline to 6 months, with limited marginal bone level changes and comparable outcomes between groups. Histologically, mixed-effects model analysis showed that the tissue region significantly affected both the inflammatory infiltrate and the fibroblast density (p ConclusionMonolithic zirconia and PFM implant-supported single crowns resulted in comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes. The peri-implant soft-tissue response to the two restorative materials showed a greater effect of the tissue region, while the material itself had only negligible effect.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02272491.

Abstract licence: CC BY

Background/objectivesBeeswax, a complex natural secretion primarily derived from Apis mellifera and Apis cerana, has evolved from an ancient remedy into a multifunctional excipient and bioactive material in modern pharmaceutical sciences. This review evaluates its physicochemical properties, pharmaceutical applications, and emerging biomedical potential, while addressing current quality and regulatory challenges.MethodsA narrative review was conducted by analyzing literature on the chemical composition, functional properties, conventional uses, advanced drug delivery applications, pharmacological activities, and quality control of beeswax, emphasizing structural characteristics, formulation roles, and integration into innovative delivery technologies.ResultsBeeswax is a lipid-based matrix composed of over 300 constituents, including wax esters, hydrocarbons, and free fatty acids, conferring thermoplasticity, biocompatibility, and structural stability. Traditionally, it functions as a stiffening agent, viscosity modifier, and emulsion stabilizer in topical formulations, forming an occlusive barrier that enhances skin hydration. In advanced systems, it serves as a solid lipid matrix in nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs), microspheres, and 3D-printed tablets, enabling controlled drug release and improved bioavailability of lipophilic compounds. It also exhibits antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and wound-healing activities, while beeswax-derived policosanols show potential cardiovascular and gastroprotective benefits. However, concerns regarding paraffin adulteration and pesticide contamination highlight the need for stringent analytical and regulatory oversight.ConclusionsWith rigorous quality control and sustainable sourcing, beeswax remains a versatile, eco-friendly material bridging traditional medicine and advanced pharmaceutical innovation.

Abstract licence: CC BY