Neuronal loss and axonal degeneration after spinal cord injury or peripheral injury result in the loss of sensory and motor functions. Nerve regeneration is a complicated and medical challenge that requires suitable guides to bridge nerve injury gaps and restore nerve function. Due to the hostility of the microenvironment in the lesion, multiple conditions should be fulfilled to achieve improved functional recovery. Many nerve conduits have been fabricated using various natural and synthetic polymers. The design and material of the nerve guide conduits were carefully reviewed. A detailed review was conducted on the fabrication method of the nerve guide conduit for nerve regeneration. The typical fabrication methods used to fabricate nerve conduits are dip coating, solvent casting, micropatterning, electrospinning, and additive manufacturing. The advantages and disadvantages of the fabrication methods were reported, and research to overcome these limitations was reviewed. Extensive reviews have focused on the biological functions and in vivo performance of polymeric nerve conduits. In this paper, we emphasize the fabrication method of nerve conduits by polymers and their properties. By learning from the existing candidates, we can advance the strategies for designing novel polymeric systems with better properties for nerve regeneration.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate Ti-base abutment’s three different heights and three different cement types on the pull-off force of zirconia-based restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 fixture lab analogs were embedded in auto polymerizing resin bloack. 90 Ti-base abutments heights of 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm were scanned and zirconia restoration were prepared from scanned files. Zirconia restoration were cemented with three different types of cements (temporary, semi-permanent, permanent) following manufacturer’s instructions. All 90 specimens were placed and tested in a universal testingmachine for pull-out testing. Retention was measured by recording the force at load drop. Statistical analysis was performedusing Kruskal-Wallis test for detecting whether there are any statistical significance along cement types or abutment heights.After that, Mann-Whitney test was used for figuring out differences regarding abutment height and the comparison between 3cements. Results: Temp bond showed significantly lower pull-off force compared to Fujicem regardless of any abutment height.However, there were significant differences between Cem-implant and Fujicem in abutment height of 3 mm and 7 mm, but there was no significant difference in 5 mm. Temp bond and Cem-implant had significant differences only in abutment height of 5 mm. Conclusion Although Ti-base abutment height did not influenced zirconia restorations’ retentiveness, cement types showed significant differences.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate Ti-base abutment’s three different heights and three different cement types on the pull-off force of zirconia-based restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 fixture lab analogs were embedded in auto polymerizing resin bloack. 90 Ti-base abutments heights of 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm were scanned and zirconia restoration were prepared from scanned files. Zirconia restoration were cemented with three different types of cements (temporary, semi-permanent, permanent) following manufacturer’s instructions. All 90 specimens were placed and tested in a universal testingmachine for pull-out testing. Retention was measured by recording the force at load drop. Statistical analysis was performedusing Kruskal-Wallis test for detecting whether there are any statistical significance along cement types or abutment heights.After that, Mann-Whitney test was used for figuring out differences regarding abutment height and the comparison between 3cements. Results: Temp bond showed significantly lower pull-off force compared to Fujicem regardless of any abutment height.However, there were significant differences between Cem-implant and Fujicem in abutment height of 3 mm and 7 mm, but there was no significant difference in 5 mm. Temp bond and Cem-implant had significant differences only in abutment height of 5 mm. Conclusion Although Ti-base abutment height did not influenced zirconia restorations’ retentiveness, cement types showed significant differences.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate Ti-base abutment’s three different heights and three different cement types on the pull-off force of zirconia-based restorations. Materials and Methods: A total of 90 fixture lab analogs were embedded in auto polymerizing resin bloack. 90 Ti-base abutments heights of 3 mm, 5 mm, 7 mm were scanned and zirconia restoration were prepared from scanned files. Zirconia restoration were cemented with three different types of cements (temporary, semi-permanent, permanent) following manufacturer’s instructions. All 90 specimens were placed and tested in a universal testingmachine for pull-out testing. Retention was measured by recording the force at load drop. Statistical analysis was performedusing Kruskal-Wallis test for detecting whether there are any statistical significance along cement types or abutment heights.After that, Mann-Whitney test was used for figuring out differences regarding abutment height and the comparison between 3cements. Results: Temp bond showed significantly lower pull-off force compared to Fujicem regardless of any abutment height.However, there were significant differences between Cem-implant and Fujicem in abutment height of 3 mm and 7 mm, but there was no significant difference in 5 mm. Temp bond and Cem-implant had significant differences only in abutment height of 5 mm. Conclusion Although Ti-base abutment height did not influenced zirconia restorations’ retentiveness, cement types showed significant differences.