In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Intraoral digital scan techniques have been widely used and sufficient evidence supports this technique in partially edentulous patients. However, the evidence supporting the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for edentulous patients is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the accuracy of complete arch conventional pick-up implant impressions with open and closed trays, complete arch digital implant scans with IOSs, and 3-dimensional (3D) printed casts from complete arch digital implant scans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six implants were placed in a mandibular model. Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the implants, scanned with a reference scanner, and exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format (Group Control). Splinted open-tray pick-up impressions (Group OT, n=5) and closed-tray pick-up impressions (Group CT, n=5) were made, and stone casts were fabricated. Digital scans (Group DS, n=5) were made with an IOS, and the STL files were exported to fabricate 3D printed casts (Group STL, n=5). Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the dental implant analogs in Groups OT, CT, and STL and scanned with the reference scanner. Using a 3D inspection software program, the recording techniques were compared with the control. Root mean square (RMS) values were calculated from the control, and superimposed digitized casts from different recording techniques. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences in RMS values, and theTukey post hoc test was used to determine difference between different groups. RESULTS: Group CT had the lowest mean dimensional difference when superimposed with Group Control, followed by Groups DS, OT, and STL. Significant differences were found in RMS values between Control and digitized casts fabricated with different techniques (P<.05). The post hoc Tukey test revealed that Group DS (P<.05) was significantly different from the other groups, while no significant difference was found among Groups CT, OT, and STL (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of the present study, 3D printed casts from digital scans have the same accuracy as stone casts from conventional impressions in complete arch implant cases. Intraoral scans had the highest accuracy. Complete arch pick-up impression techniques using dual-functioning scannable pick-up impression copings are as accurate as splinted complete arch pick-up impressions.

Fabrication of a Dual-Purpose Implant Surgical Guide.

While surgical guides have allowed for more highly accurate immediate implant placement in the esthetic zone, only a few techniques have been described to predictably position an immediate implant provisional. Even fewer techniques have addressed repositioning a patient's extracted tooth for use as the interim implant restoration. This article describes a workflow for the fabrication of a dual-purpose surgical guide that allows for guidance of implant placement as well as repositioning of a decoronated tooth that will serve as a provisional. While other provisional techniques aim to recreate proper gingival contour, the benefit of repositioning of the original tooth is the preservation of the existing gingival margin position and existing critical contour of the emergence profile.

A randomized, double-blind pilot study of analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of naproxen sodium and acetaminophen following dental implant placement surgery.

Introduction: Post-surgical pain following dental implant placement surgery is typically managed with non-opioid analgesics, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen. However, the comparative analgesic efficacy of over-the-counter doses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen in implant patients is unknown. Therefore, we compared the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of naproxen sodium and acetaminophen after surgical placement of one or two dental implants. Methods: Adult patients were treated with naproxen sodium (440 mg loading dose +220 mg q8h, n = 15) or acetaminophen (1,000 mg q6h-max daily dose 3,000 mg, n = 15) for 3 days after implant placement in a randomized, double-blind design. Pain was assessed on a 0-10 scale every 20 min for 6 h after study medication treatment. Tramadol (50 mg) was available as a rescue medication. Plasma and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) were collected prior to the surgery and 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 24, and 72 h after surgery for quantification of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and IL-1ß levels. Results: Pain scores were significantly lower in patients treated with naproxen sodium compared to those treated with acetaminophen. Inflammatory mediator levels in plasma and gingival crevicular fluid increased after surgery and returned to near baseline levels by 72 h. Plasma IL-6 levels were significantly lower 6 h after surgery in patients treated with naproxen sodium compared to acetaminophen. No differences in inflammatory mediator concentrations in gingival crevicular fluid were observed between the treatment groups. The number of implants placed and body mass index (BMI) influenced inflammatory mediator concentrations in plasma and gingival crevicular fluid, respectively. Discussion: Naproxen sodium was more effective than acetaminophen in reducing post-operative pain and systemic inflammation following surgical placement of one or two dental implants. Further studies are needed to determine whether these findings are applicable to more complex implant cases and how they affect clinical outcomes following implant placement. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04694300.