RESUMO
Introduction: The rapid advancement of 3D printing technology has opened new avenues for patient-specific prosthodontic rehabilitation. This study aimed to explore the impact of 3D printing technology on prosthodontic outcomes and patient satisfaction through a comparative analysis. Materials and Methods: A total of 100 patients requiring prosthodontic rehabilitation were recruited for this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: the experimental group, where 3D printing technology was utilized for the fabrication of patient-specific prostheses, and the control group, where conventional fabrication techniques were employed. Various parameters were assessed, including prosthesis fit, occlusion, esthetics, and patient-reported outcomes such as comfort and satisfaction. Digital measurements and subjective evaluations were conducted to compare the outcomes between the two groups. Statistical analysis was performed using appropriate tests. Results: Preliminary findings indicated that the use of 3D printing technology in prosthodontic rehabilitation resulted in superior prosthesis fit, enhanced occlusal stability, and improved esthetics compared to conventional methods. Moreover, patients in the experimental group reported higher levels of comfort and overall satisfaction. The advantages of 3D printing technology were observed across different types of prosthodontic restorations, including crowns, bridges, and dentures. These results highlight the potential of 3D printing technology to revolutionize patient-specific prosthodontic rehabilitation. By facilitating precise fabrication, customization, and improved functional outcomes, 3D printing can enhance the overall quality of prosthodontic care. Further long-term studies are warranted to validate these findings and explore the cost-effectiveness and long-term durability of 3D-printed prostheses. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study demonstrates that the integration of 3D printing technology in patient-specific prosthodontic rehabilitation holds great promise for achieving optimal functional and esthetic outcomes. The findings contribute to advancing prosthodontic practices and provide valuable insights for clinicians and researchers seeking to incorporate this innovative technology into their treatment protocols.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: For maintaining the occlusion, screws to anchor bones are needed to be used in transalveolar manner to get the intermaxillary fixation in participants with no preoperative orthodontic treatment or participants with loose or broken appliances. AIMS: The present clinical trial was hence aimed to assess the postoperative complications following orthognathic surgical repair of skeletal malocclusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two participants were divided into two groups (n = 22). In Group I, predrill was done to create the holes in transalveolar position before screw insertion. For Group II, self-cutting screws were used without the drills. The radiographs were then taken to assess the associated root injuries. To evaluate the effect of different steroid doses on the pain, nerve healing, and swelling, the participants were divided into three groups (n = 14). Plate removal and associated factors were also evaluated. Collected data were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: In Group where no predrill was done, no root injuries were seen. Considerably less facial edema was observed in Group II and III compared to control Group I. This difference was statistically significant with a P value of 0.2057. At 1 week, 3 months, and 6-month postoperatively in Group II and Group III, no significant difference was seen. No significant difference in the postoperative pain between the groups was seen (P = 0.85103). Neurosensory Visual Analog Score measurement revealed no significant difference between three groups at 6 months with the P value of 0.81821. CONCLUSION: The present study concludes that risk for the root injury is possessed by the screws that require predrill, whereas the self-drilling screws had no risk for root injury.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The shear bond strength obtained with an acid primer might not be clinically reliable. The present study evaluated the use of a new self-etch primer as compared with the conventional bonding procedure. The findings indicated that the use of a self-etch primer to bond orthodontic brackets to the namel surface provided lower, but clinically accept-able, shear bond forces (mean, 7.1 ± 4.4 MPa). Hence, this study has been designed to evaluate the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a self-etching primer system, and compare it with the conventional acid etching priming system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was designed to compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with conventional acid etching- priming and a self-etching primer. For this purpose, one hundred and twenty noncarious, not subjected to any pretreatment chemical agents (e.g. hydrogen peroxide), no cracks caused by the presence of the extraction forceps, no caries and unrestored human maxillary 1st and 2nd premolars, freshly extracted for orthodontic treatment were collected and stored in distilled water before bonding. Separate molds of cold-cure acrylic were prepared and the extracted premolar teeth were embedded in the cold cure acrylic up to the cement enamel junction. RESULTS: For the control group, the mean shear bond strength was 9.38 ± 6.02 MPa and for the experimental group, it is 6.91 ± 3.58 MPa. Group comparison using Chi-square test for the self-etching primer group adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores shows that more than half of the adhesive left over the tooth surface (score 3 and 4). For the conventional group, ARI scores show that there was no or slight amount of adhesive left over the tooth surface (score 5). The proportion of ARI score is significantly (P < 0.001) more in conventional (68.33%) as compared to self-etch primer (SEP) (28.33%). The proportion of ARI scores 4 and less is significantly more in SEP (71.67%) as compared to Conventional (6.67%) with P = 0.004 as per the Chi-square test. CONCLUSION: The bond strength of SEP is comparatively lesser than the conventional acid etching technique, but is definitely more or less to the required bond strength to resist masticatory forces. Majority of the studies conducted on self-etching primer are in vitro studies. Results of these cannot be extrapolated to the intraoral environment. Hence, further long-term clinical studies need to be carried out before actually recommending the use of self-etching primer in routine orthodontic bonding.
