Copy-paste concept: Full digital approach in the management of gingival emergence profiles.

OBJECTIVE: Obtaining a perfect integration of a prosthetic rehabilitation on natural teeth and implantys in the esthetic zone requires a deep knowledge of the biological processes and a clear understanding of the characteristics of the restorative materials. Once the soft tissue profile has been created with the placement of a temporary prosthesis, the ability to accurately transfer information about the tissue profile and the contour of the restoration for the fabrication of the definitive crowns can be challenging. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This paper illustrate the copy paste full digital workflow, a simple protocol that allows to create definitive restorations by making an exact copy of the temporary prosthesis that has been placed in function in the patient's mouth.

Digital dental workflow for a smile makeover restoration.

This article describes a novel concept for treatment planning and execution in the digital era. The aim of the presented workflow was to design, plan, communicate, perform, fabricate, deliver, and maintain a smile makeover restoration entirely through digital technology. The interdisciplinary treatment plan is described from the planning through the diagnostic mock-up to the final restoration. In digital designing, the dental morphology and tooth shape seen by the clinician and technician are interpreted by the computer as a 3D geometric mathematic model. Controlling the geometry provides freedom for the clinician to develop a restorative digital plan that can be followed throughout the patient's treatment. Moreover, new ceramic materials used with computer-assisted techniques have considerably broadened the choices for dental teams and have enhanced the results that can be achieved.

Clinical investigation on axial versus tilted implants for immediate fixed rehabilitation of edentulous arches: preliminary results of a single cohort study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical investigation was to evaluate full-arch fixed-dental restorations supported by immediate loaded axial and tilted implants in a single-cohort study. Survival rate of axial and tilted implants was compared. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From 2006 to 2010, 30 patients were recruited and treated with dental implants. Provisional fixed-dental prostheses were screw-retained over axial or axial and tilted implants within 24 hours after surgery. Follow-ups at 6, 12, and 24 months and annually up to 5 years were scheduled, and radiographic evaluation of peri-implant bone level changes was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty patients (20 females and 10 males) were followed up for an average of 44 months (range 18-67 months). Six patients received both upper and lower implant rehabilitations, resulting in 36 restorations. A total of two hundred two implants were placed (maxilla = 118; mandible = 84) and 46% of the fixtures were evaluated at the 4-year recall. Four axial implants were lost in three patients, leading to 98.02% implant (97.56% axial implants and 100% tilted implants) and 100% prosthetic cumulative survival rate, respectively. No significant difference in marginal bone loss was found between tilted and axial implants in both jaws at 1-year evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Midterm results confirmed that immediate loading of axial and tilted implants provides a viable treatment modality for the rehabilitation of edentulous arches.

Comparison between graft and no-graft in an immediate placed and immediate nonfunctional loaded implant.

PURPOSE: This study compares success rates and hard and periimplant soft tissue responses, between placement and nonplacement of the following five different types of grafts: autogenous bone (A); deproteinized bovine bone mineral (H); demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft (D); A + H; A + D in horizontal gaps between implant surfaces and the buccal bone wall, in immediate placed and immediate nonfunctional loaded implants in maxillary arch. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-one patients with a mean age of 42.5 years were enrolled in this retrospective comparative study. Outcome assessments included clinical and radiographic evaluation. RESULTS: Patients were followed up on average for 32 months with a 100% implant survival rate. No significant difference was found between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest that immediate placed and immediate restored single implants are valuable therapeutic options in the maxillary arch. The types of grafts placement: A, H, D, A + H, and A + D in horizontal gaps have no additional benefit in promoting better clinical outcomes given that a thick gingival biotype is present.