Removable complete denture with a metal base: Integration of digital design and conventional fabrication techniques.

OBJECTIVE: Digitally-designed removable complete dentures are typically composed of a resin denture base without a metal framework. However, metal denture bases are preferable as resin bases are more susceptible to fracture. Therefore, this article introduces a unique technique that integrates computer-aided design (CAD) and conventional resin processing for the fabrication of removable complete dentures with a metal framework. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: A maxillary complete denture with a metal base and a mandibular implant-retained overdenture reinforced with a metal framework were fabricated. The dentures were designed using CAD software and a tooth library. The denture bases were milled from wax disks, and artificial teeth were placed to complete the wax dentures. The metal frameworks were also designed using CAD software and produced via casting of printed resin patterns. Finally, conventional denture processing techniques were applied to obtain dentures with metal frameworks. CONCLUSIONS: A digitally designed, removable complete denture with a metal base can be successfully fabricated using the described technique, which merges digital design and conventional methods. This article demonstrates the feasibility and potential advantages of this innovative approach in denture fabrication. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The presented technique provides the following advantages: digital design features, precise space above implant overdenture attachments for a metal framework, convenience of esthetic evaluation with printed trial dentures, long-term data storage and duplication, reliable bond between the artificial teeth and denture base, and enhanced strength of the removable complete denture due to the metal reinforcement.

Comparison of the clinical outcomes of resin-modified glass ionomer and self-adhesive resin cementations for full-coverage zirconia restorations.

OBJECTIVES: Both resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and self-adhesive resin cement (SAC) may be suitable for cementation of full-coverage zirconia restorations. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of zirconia-based restorations cemented with RMGIC and compare them with those cemented with SAC. METHODS: Cases of full-coverage zirconia-based restorations cemented with either RMGIC or SAC between March 2016 and February 2019 were evaluated in this study. The clinical outcomes of the restorations were analyzed according to the type of cement used. In addition, cumulative success and survival rates were evaluated according to the cement and abutment types. Non-inferiority, Kaplan-Meier, and Cox hazard tests were conducted (α=.05). RESULTS: A total of 288 full-coverage zirconia-based restorations (natural teeth, 157; implant restorations, 131) were analyzed. Loss of retention occurred in only one case; a single-unit implant crown cemented with RMGIC, which decemented 4.25 years post-restoration. RMGIC was non-inferior to SAC in terms of loss of retention (<5%). For single-unit natural tooth restorations, the four-year success rates in the RMGIC and SAC groups were 100% and 95.65%, respectively (p=.122). For single-unit implant restorations, the four-year success rates in the RMGIC and SAC groups were 95.66% and 100%, respectively (p=.365). The hazard ratios of all the predictor variables, including cement type, were not significant (p>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cementation of full-coverage zirconia restorations of both natural teeth and implants using RMGIC and SAC yields satisfactory clinical outcomes. Furthermore, RMGIC is non-inferior to SAC in terms of cementation success. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Cementation with RMGIC or SAC for full-coverage zirconia restorations has favorable clinical outcomes in both natural teeth and implants. Both RMGIC and SAC have advantages in the cementation of full-coverage zirconia restorations to abutments with favorable geometries.

Abutment margin levels and residual cement occurrence in cement-retained implant restorations: An observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the association between different vertical levels of the abutment margin and residual cement prevalence in cement-retained implant restorations with customized abutments. METHODS: One hundred and nine single-unit cement-retained implant restorations with a screw-access channel were included. The crowns were intraorally cemented on the abutments, and excess cement was removed. The abutment-crown complex was unscrewed, and the abutment-crown complex and peri-implant tissue were photographed. Residual cement presence was recorded by dividing the abutment-crown complex and peri-implant tissue into four quadrants: mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual. The prevalence of residual cement was compared according to the height of the custom abutment margin of the corresponding quadrant. A multilevel model was used for statistical analysis (α = .05). RESULTS: Cement remnants were discovered on 72.48% of the dental implants. When the restoration quadrants were compared, cement remnants were present on 51.38%, 39.45%, 20.18%, and 17.43% of the mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual surfaces, respectively (p < .01). Regarding the abutment margin level, cement residues were found in 60.22% and 61.4% of the 0.5 mm subgingival and ≥1 mm subgingival margin groups, respectively, which were significantly more than those in the supragingival (23.65%) and equigingival (26.59%) margin groups (p < .01). After adjustment for confounding factors, the adjusted odds ratio (with 95% confidence interval) for residual cement in the subgingival margin groups was 3.664 (1.71, 7.852) when compared to the supragingival and equigingival margin groups. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of residual cement occurrence was 3.66-fold higher with a subgingival abutment margin than with supragingival and equigingival abutment margins.