ABSTRACT
In dentist's daily practice, intraoral scanning systems are increased. Besides scanning of prepared teeth, also implants could be scanned intraorally. This clinical report describes the step-by-step techniques to scan digitally intraoral implants with two intraoral scanners (Lava™ C.O.S., 3M Espe and the CEREC AC connected with inLab MC XL, Sirona) for generating implant suprastructures without the use of impression materials, dental stone or implant impression copings. Different workflows, possibilities and limits by scanning dental implants are demonstrated.
Subject(s)
Dental Implants , Dental Impression Technique , Image Processing, Computer-Assisted , Imaging, Three-Dimensional/methods , Computer-Aided Design , Crowns , Dental Implant-Abutment Design , Humans , Optical Devices , WorkflowABSTRACT
Markov models are mathematical models that can be used to describe disease progression and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of medical interventions. Markov models allow projecting clinical and economic outcomes into the future and are therefore frequently used to estimate long-term outcomes of medical interventions. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate its use in dentistry, using the example of resin-bonded bridges to replace missing teeth, and to review the literature. We used literature data and a four-state Markov model to project long-term outcomes of resin-bonded bridges over a time horizon of 60 years. In addition, the literature was searched in PubMed Medline for research articles on the application of Markov models in dentistry.
Subject(s)
Denture, Partial, Fixed, Resin-Bonded/economics , Markov Chains , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Time FactorsABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To assess clinical and microbiological outcomes of an Er:YAG laser in comparison with sonic debridement in the treatment of persistent periodontal pockets in a prospective randomized controlled multicentre study design. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 78 patients in supportive periodontal therapy with two residual pockets were included, 58 were available for the whole follow-up period. Root surfaces were instrumented either with a sonic scaler (Sonicflex(®) 2003 L) or with an Er:YAG laser (KEY Laser(®) 3). Clinical attachment levels (CAL), Probing depths (PD), Plaque control record (PCR) and Bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed at baseline, 13 and 26 weeks after treatment. In addition, microbiological analysis was performed employing a DNA diagnostic test kit (micro-IDent(®) Plus). RESULTS: Probing depths and CAL were significantly reduced in both groups over time (p < 0.05), without significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). BOP frequency values decreased significantly within both groups (p < 0.05), with no difference between the laser and the sonic treatment (p > 0.05). PCR frequency values did not change during the observation period (p > 0.05). Microbiological analysis failed to expose any significant difference based on treatment group or period. CONCLUSION: Employing both sonic and laser treatment procedures during supportive periodontal care, similar clinical and microbiological outcomes can be expected.
