Cytotoxicity and antibacterial susceptibility assessment of a newly developed pectin-chitosan polyelectrolyte composite for dental implants.

Biopolymers such as chitosan and pectin are currently attracting significant attention because of their unique properties, which are valuable in the food industry and pharmaceutical applications. These properties include non-toxicity, compatibility with biological systems, natural decomposition ability, and structural adaptability. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of two different ratios of pectin-chitosan polyelectrolyte composite (PCPC) after applying them as a coating to commercially pure titanium (CpTi) substrates using electrospraying. The PCPC was studied in ratios of 1:2 and 1:3, while the control group consisted of CpTi substrates without any coating. The pull-off adhesion strength, cytotoxicity, and antibacterial susceptibility tests were utilized to evaluate the PCPC coatings. In order to determine whether the composite coating was the result of physical blending or chemical bonding, the topographic surface parameters were studied using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). PCPC (1:3) had the highest average cell viability of 93.42, 89.88, and 86.85% after 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively, as determined by the cytotoxicity assay, when compared to the other groups. According to the Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion method for testing antibacterial susceptibility, PCPC (1:3) showed the highest average diameter of the zone of inhibition, measuring 14.88, 14.43, and 11.03 mm after 24, 48, and 72 h of incubation, respectively. This difference was highly significant compared to Group 3 at all three time periods. PCPC (1:3) exhibited a significantly higher mean pull-off adhesion strength (521.6 psi) compared to PCPC (1:2), which revealed 419.5 psi. PCPC (1:3) coated substrates exhibited better surface roughness parameters compared to other groups based on the findings of the AFM. The FTIR measurement indicated that both PCPC groups exhibited a purely physical blending in the composite coating. Based on the extent of these successful in vitro experiments, PCPC (1:3) demonstrates its potential as an effective coating layer. Therefore, the findings of this study pave the way for using newly developed PCPC after electrospraying coating on CpTi for dental implants.

A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of a digital implant impression technique using a TRIOS 3Shape intraoral scanner (IOS) compared to conventional implant impression techniques (pick-up and transfer) in clinical situations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients who had two implants (Implantium, internal connection) ranging in diameter between 3.8 and 4.8 mm in posterior regions participated in this study after signing a consent form. Thirty-six reference models (RM) were fabricated by attaching two impression copings intraorally, splinted with autopolymerizing acrylic resin, verified by sectioning through the middle of the index, and rejoined again with freshly mixed autopolymerizing acrylic resin pattern (Pattern Resin) with the brush bead method. After that, the splinted assemblies were attached to implant analogs (DANSE) and impressed with type III dental stone (Gypsum Microstone) in standard plastic die lock trays. Thirty-six working casts were fabricated for each conventional impression technique (i.e., pick-up and transfer). Thirty-six digital impressions were made with a TRIOS 3Shape IOS. Eight of the digitally scanned files were damaged; 28 digital scan files were retrieved to STL format. A coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) was used to record linear displacement measurements (x, y, and z-coordinates), interimplant distances, and angular displacements for the RMs and conventionally fabricated working casts. CATIA 3D evaluation software was used to assess the digital STL files for the same variables as the CMM measurements. CMM measurements made on the RMs and conventionally fabricated working casts were compared with 3D software measurements made on the digitally scanned files. Data were statistically analyzed using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation matrix and linear method, followed by the Bonferroni method for pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The results showed significant differences between the pick-up and digital groups in all of the measured variables (p < 0.001). Concerning the transfer and digital groups, the results were statistically significant in angular displacement (p < 0.001), distance measurements (p = 0.01), and linear displacement (p = 0.03); however, between the pick-up and transfer groups, there was no statistical significance in all of the measured variables (interimplant distance deviation, linear displacement, and angular displacement deviations). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, the digital implant impression technique had the least accuracy. Based on the study outcomes, distance and angulation errors associated with the intraoral digital implant impressions were too large to fabricate well-fitting restorations for partially edentulous patients. The pick-up implant impression technique was the most accurate, and the transfer technique revealed comparable accuracy to it.

Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The objective was to provide a comprehensive systematic review about the accuracy of digital implant impression in comparison with the conventional implant impression approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases were used to classify the related articles with no year limitation in 3 stages by 2 reviewers. Finally, 10 articles were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Five articles supported the use of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. The two in vivo pilot studies showed that digital scanning is not reliable and could not be used in clinical routine. CONCLUSION: Because each study included in this review has its unique methodology and design, it is therefore early to conclude whether to use digital scanners for clinical practice or not. More well-conducted in vitro and clinical trials studies are recommended to investigate the accuracy of intraoral scanners.