Trueness of maxillomandibular relationship in 3D-printed and conventional casts.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the trueness of maxillomandibular relationship between articulated 3D-printed and conventional diagnostic casts in maximum intercuspation (MIP). METHODS: Reference casts were articulated in MIP, and scanned using a Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM, n = 1). Digital scans were made from the reference casts by using an intraoral scanner (IOS, n = 10) (Trios 4; 3Shape A/S). IOS scans were processed to create 3D-printed casts by using MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems) 3D-printers. The conventional workflow implemented vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions and Type IV stone. Stone and 3D-printed casts were articulated and digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape A/S). The 3D-printed casts were scanned on two occasions: with and without positioning pins. Inter-arch distances and 3D-contact area were measured and compared. Statistical tests used were Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Welch's t-test, and 2-way ANOVA (α=0.05). RESULTS: IOS group showed similar or better maxillomandibular relationship trueness than stone casts and 3D-printed casts (p < 0.05). 3D-contact area analysis showed similar deviations between 3D-printed and stone casts (p > 0.05). The choice of 3D-printer and presence of positioning pins on the casts significantly influenced maxillomandibular relationship trueness (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Articulated 3D-printed and stone casts exhibited similar maxillomandibular relationship trueness. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although 3D-printing methods can introduce a considerable amount of deviations, the maxillomandibular relationship trueness of articulated 3D-printed and stone casts in MIP can be considered similar.

Accuracy of additively manufactured and steam sterilized surgical guides by means of continuous liquid interface production, stereolithography, digital light processing, and fused filament fabrication.

Different printing technologies can be used for prosthetically oriented implant placement, however the influence of different printing orientations and steam sterilization remains unclear. In particular, no data is available for the novel technology Continuous Liquid Interface Production. The objective was to evaluate the dimensional accuracy of surgical guides manufactured with different printing techniques in vertical and horizontal printing orientation before and after steam sterilization. A total of 80 surgical guides were manufactured by means of continuous liquid interface production (CLIP; material: Keyguide, Keyprint), digital light processing (DLP; material: Luxaprint Ortho, DMG), stereolithography (SLA; Surgical guide, Formlabs), and fused filament fabrication (FFF; material: Clear Base Support, Arfona) in vertical and horizontal printing orientation (n = 10 per subgroup). Spheres were included in the design to determine the coordinates of 17 reference points. Each specimen was digitized with a laboratory scanner after additive manufacturing (AM) and after steam sterilization (134 °C). To determine the accuracy, root mean square values (RMS) were calculated and coordinates of the reference points were recorded. Based on the measured coordinates, deviations of the reference points and relevant distances were calculated. Paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA were applied for statistical analysis (significance p < 0.05). After AM, all printing technologies showed comparable high accuracy, with an increased deviation in z-axis when printed horizontally. After sterilization, FFF printed surgical guides showed distinct warpage. The other subgroups showed no significant differences regarding the RMS of the corpus after steam sterilization (p > 0.05). Regarding reference points and distances, CLIP showed larger deviations compared to SLA in both printing orientations after steam sterilization, while DLP manufactured guides were the most dimensionally stable. In conclusion, the different printing technologies and orientations had little effect on the manufacturing accuracy of the surgical guides before sterilization. However, after sterilization, FFF surgical guides exhibited significant deformation making their clinical use impossible. CLIP showed larger deformations due to steam sterilization than the other photopolymerizing techniques, however, discrepancies may be considered within the range of clinical acceptance. The influence on the implant position remains to be evaluated.

Patient-reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO2 implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double-blind crossover randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This double-blind randomized controlled trial analyzed patient-reported outcome measures in terms of subjective patient satisfaction compared to objective dental evaluation of prosthetic treatment with 3-unit monolithic zirconium dioxide implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) in 3 digital workflows. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients were restored with 3 iFDPs each on Straumann TL-implants with 2 completely digital workflows using different intraoral optical scanning systems with model-free fabrication of the restoration (Trios 3/3Shape [Test-1]; Virtuo Vivo/Straumann [Test-2]), and mixed analog-digital workflow with conventional impressions and digitized gypsum casts (Impregum/3M Espe [Control]). The order of impression-taking and the prosthetic try-in were randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs were compared for patient satisfaction and dental evaluation using ANOVA. RESULTS: For iFDP evaluation, patients generally provided more favorable ratings than dental experts, regardless of the workflow. ANOVA revealed no significant difference for overall satisfaction when comparing Test-1, Test-2, or Control, either for patients (f-ratio: 0.13; p = 0.876) or dentist (f-ratio: 1.55: p = 0.221). Secondary, patients clearly favored the digital impression workflows over the conventional approach (f-ratio: 14.57; p < 0.001). Overall, the 3Shape workflow (Test-1) received the highest scores for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The different digital workflows demonstrated minor influence on the subjective and objective evaluation of the monolithic zirconium dioxide iFDPs in nonesthetic regions; however, the dentist may significantly increase patient satisfaction by choosing intraoral scanning instead of conventional impressions. The dentist has to consider individual patients' needs to fulfill their expectations for a personalized solution.

Efficacy of tooth splinting and occlusal adjustment in patients with periodontitis exhibiting masticatory dysfunction: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of tooth splinting (TS) and occlusal adjustment (OA) compared to no TS or OA in patients with periodontitis exhibiting masticatory dysfunction. MATERIAL: The primary outcome criterion was tooth loss (TL), and the secondary outcome parameters were change in probing pocket depth (PPD), change in clinical attachment level (CAL), tooth mobility (TM), and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Literature search was performed on three electronic databases (from 01/1965 to 04/2021) and focused on clinical studies with at least 12 months follow-up. RESULTS: From a total of 1515 publications, 51 articles were identified for full-text reading, of which 2 retrospective case series on TS with low risk of bias and 1 randomized and 2 prospective studies on OA with unclear risk of bias were included. For TS, synthesis of data showed that in 72 patients, 26 out of 311 teeth (weighted mean incidence of TL 8.4%) and 156 out of 1541 teeth with no TS (weighted mean incidence of TL 10.1%) were lost over 2 years following non-surgical periodontal therapy. The randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) indicated CAL gain for teeth with OA compared to no OA. For the effect of OA on TL, PPD, and TM, heterogeneous data were retrieved from the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this review and based on a low level of evidence, it is concluded that TS does not improve survival of mobile teeth in patients with advanced periodontitis. OA on teeth with mobility and/or premature contacts may lead to improved CAL, while the effect of OA on the remaining periodontal parameters remains unclear.

Time-efficiency and cost-analysis comparing three digital workflows for treatment with monolithic zirconia implant fixed dental prostheses: A double-blinded RCT.

OBJECTIVES: This double-blinded randomized controlled trial investigated economic performance indicators (EPI) in terms of time-efficiency and production costs of 3-unit monolithic zirconium-dioxide (ZrO2) implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDP) in three different workflows. METHODS: Twenty patients with two Straumann Tissue-Level-Implants received three iFDPs; two were fabricated in proprietary complete digital workflows with intraoral optical scanning and model-free fabrication with company-related CAD/CAM lab-software while one iFDP was manufactured on digitized casts from conventional impressions. The sequence of impression-taking for the three workflows (TRIOS 3/3Shape [Test-1]; Virtuo Vivo/Dental Wings [Test-2]; Impregum/3M Espe [Control]) was randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs bonded to ti-base abutments were analyzed. Clinical and technical worksteps for Test-1/Test-2/Control were recorded and evaluated for time-efficiency including cost-analysis (CHF=Swiss Francs) using ANOVA-Tests (significance level α=0.05). RESULTS: Mean total work time, as the sum of clinical plus technical steps, was 97.5 min (SD ± 23.6) for Test-1, 193.1 min (SD ± 25.2) for Test-2, and 172.6 min (SD ± 27.4) for Control. Times were significantly different between Test-1/Test-2 (p < 0.00001), Test-1/Control (p < 0.00001), and Test-2/Control (p < 0.03610). Technical costs were 566 CHF (SD ± 49.3) for Test-1, 711 CHF (SD ± 78.8) for Test-2, 812 CHF (SD ± 89.6) for Control, and were also significantly different for all comparisons (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Test-1 demonstrated the best performance for time-efficiency, Test-2 revealed the worst result. This indicates that digital workflows are not the same and not necessarily superior to analog workflows of monolithic ZrO2 iFDPs. Complexity decreases by reducing the number of steps following complete digital workflows, resulting in lower production costs compared to the mixed analog-digital workflow with conventional impressions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Complete digital workflows comprising intraoral optical scanning without physical models for treatment with monolithic ZrO2 iFDPs is an efficient alternative to mixed analog-digital workflows with conventional impressions and labside digitization of dental casts.

A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO2 Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows.

This double-blind randomized controlled trial with a crossover design analyzed the technical and clinical performance of three-unit monolithic ZrO2 implant-fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs), prepared using two complete digital workflows (Test-1, Test-2) and one mixed analog-digital workflow (Control). Each of the 20 study patients received three iFDPs, resulting in 60 restorations for analysis. The quality of the restorations was assessed by analyzing laboratory cross-mounting and calculating the chairside adjustment time required during fitting. All iFDPs could be produced successfully with all three workflows. The highest cross-mounting success rate was observed for the original pairing iFDP/model of the Control group. Overall, 60% of iFDPs prepared with Test-1 workflow did not require chairside adjustment compared with 50% for Test-2 and 30% for Controls. The mean total chairside adjustment time, as the sum of interproximal, pontic, and occlusal corrections was 2.59 ± 2.51 min (Control), 2.88 ± 2.86 min (Test-1), and 3.87 ± 3.02 min (Test-2). All tested workflows were feasible for treatment with iFDPs in posterior sites on a soft tissue level type implant system. For clinical routine, it has to be considered that chairside adjustments may be necessary, at least in every second patient, independent on the workflow used.

Removable Dental Prosthesis 2.0: Digital from A to Z? / Die Modellgussprothese 2.0: Digital von A bis Z?

This case report presents the treatment of a partially edentulous patient with a clasp-retained removable dental prosthesis (RDP) using both, digital and conventional workflows. Differences were demonstrated in impression taking, bite registration, manufacturing of models, prosthetic set-up, framework design and production; the technical steps for the finish of the RDPs were identical and (currently) still dependent on manual skills. The digitally 3D-printed framework were favored by the patient and the dentist due to the precise fit. The number of manual steps will be continuously reduced applying digital technologies for the treatment with RDPs, resulting in shortened clinical and technical work time and higher precision of the final prosthetic restoration. In addition, the use of intraoral scanners is more patient-friendly than classic impressions with elastomers. Technological advancements are required to eliminate today's limitations and enable a complete digital workflow, even without any physical models. Removable Dental Prosthesis 2.0: yes ­ but not yet completely from A to Z.

HF etching of CAD/CAM materials: influence of HF concentration and etching time on shear bond strength.

BACKGROUND: The required pretreatment of CAD/CAM ceramic materials before resin composite cement application varies among studies. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of hydrofluoric acid concentration and etching time on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive and two self-adhesive resin composite cements to different CAD/CAM ceramic materials. METHODS: SBS of two adhesive (Panavia V5, Kuraray, [PV5]; Vita Adiva F-Cem, Vita Zahnfabrik, [VAF]) and two self-adhesive (RelyX Unicem 2 Automix, 3 M Espe, [RUN]; Vita Adiva S-Cem, Vita, [VAS]) cements to four different CAD/CAM materials (Vitablocs Mark II, Vita, [VM]; Vita Enamic, Vita, [VE]; e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, [EC]; Vita Suprinity PC, Vita, [VS]) was measured. The effect of the surface pretreatment by using two different hydrofluoric acid products (HF5% Vita Ceramics Etch, Vita and HF9% buffered, Ultradent Porcelain Etch, Ultradent Products) were assessed at etching times of 0 s, 5 s, 15 s, 30s and 60s for each cement and restorative material combination (n = 10 per group, total n = 1440). RESULTS: Significant effects were found for the etching time and cement for all materials with highest shear bond strength for etching times of 60s = 30s = 15 s ≥ 5 s > 0 s and for RUN>PV5 = VAF > VAS (p < 0.05). Etching with HF5% for 5 s to 15 s resulted in higher SBS values, while no differences were observed between HF5% and HF9% buffered when the substrates were etched for 30s to 60s (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study the recommended surface pretreatment of silicate ceramics is HF etching with concentrations of 5% or 9% for 15 s to 60s to achieve highest shear bond strength while the glassy matrix is sufficiently dissolved. The tested resin composite cements can be applied with all tested materials and suggested for clinical application.

Digital and Orthodontically Driven Implant Planning: A Multidisciplinary Case History Report.

Patients presenting both severe maxillary atrophy and dental malposition require a multidisciplinary treatment approach to achieve optimal esthetic and functional results. This case history report demonstrates how digital treatment planning and teeth set-up can serve as a reference for surgical, orthodontic, and prosthodontic procedures, leading to an all-ceramic full-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis.

Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures for multiple straight and tilted dental implants.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of implant impressions using computer-aided impression-making technology and a conventional approach in a standardized setting in vitro, and to verify the effect of implant angulation (40 to 45 degrees) on the accuracy of digital and conventional impression-making procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different edentulous mandibular reference models (RMs) were manufactured. Two straight (RM1); four straight (RM2); two straight and two tilted (RM3); and six straight (RM4) dental implants were placed, simulating four different clinical scenarios. The computer-aided impressions (n = 5 for each RM) were made using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (True Definition, 3M ESPE). Polyether (n = 5 for each RM) and vinyl polysiloxane (n = 5 for each RM) impression materials were utilized for the conventional approach. The collected data were analyzed in terms of trueness. The statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The overall differences of interimplant distance, identified in mean values, were statistically significant among the different impression-making groups in RM1, RM3, and RM4. The data analyses of overall interimplant angle deviations yielded statistically significant differences in all four RMs. However, the deviations obtained with both impression-making approaches did not exceed an interimplant distance threshold of 100 µm, and an interimplant angle of 0.5 degrees, which seems to be clinically acceptable. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the computer-aided and conventional impression-making approaches for straight and tilted dental implants was comparable, and might be clinically considered for full-arch, multiple-implant restorations. However, further clinical studies are required to verify the feasibility of different IOSs (with and without scanning powder application), different implant systems, and multiple implant configurations.