Search

Purpose: To compare the peri-implant bone loss of mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses (FPSs) supported by three and four implants and to correlate with the size of the horizontal and vertical distal cantilever at prosthesis placement (T1) and after 1 year (T2)., Materials and Methods: A total of 72 external hexagon (EH) type implants were placed in 20 participants. Of these, 24 supported an FPS with three implants (G3I) and 48 with four implants (G4I). The mandibular implants were named 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to their location in the arch, in a clockwise direction. Digital periapical radiographs were taken at times T1 and T2 for analysis and measurement of peri-implant bone loss. The horizontal and vertical distal cantilevers were measured with a digital caliper and correlated with peri-implant bone loss., Results: The survival rate of implants in G3I was 91.66%, and in G4I it was 97.91%. The mean bone loss in G3I was 0.88 ± 0.89 mm, and in G4I it was 0.58 ± 0.78 mm (P = .225). There was no correlation between distal horizontal cantilevers and bone loss in the studied groups, with G3I being -0.25 (P = .197) and G4I -0.22 (P = .129). Larger vertical cantilevers of implants 1 (P = .018), 3 (P =.015), and 4 (P = .045) correlated with greater bone loss in G4I., Conclusions: The number of implants in an FPS did not influence peri-implant bone loss after 1 year of follow-up. Larger vertical cantilevers influenced greater bone loss in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses supported by four implants.

Objectives: To evaluate the trueness of the digital maxillary occlusal records in comparison with the conventional records for the fabrication of complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses., Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled clinical trial followed the recommendations of the CONSORT statement. Twenty participants who used a mandibular interim complete-arch fixed prosthesis and conventional complete maxillary dentures were included in the study. The participants were randomized into two types of maxillary occlusal records: conventional (COR) and digital (DOR) (TRIOS; Shape A/S). After fabricating the prostheses, the distribution and number of occlusal contact points, and the time taken to obtain the maxillary occlusal record and work model were evaluated. Descriptive analysis was used to evaluate the distribution of occlusal contact points. The Wilcoxon test was employed for assessing the number of occlusal contact points, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used for the time taken to obtain the working casts and the maxillary occlusal record and occlusal adjustment times (p < 0.05)., Results: There was a similarity in the jaw relation recording methods regarding the distribution of occlusal contact points. There was no difference in the number of occlusal contact points between the anterior (p = 0.439) and posterior (p = 0.227) teeth. No relationship was observed between the distribution and number of occlusal contact points (COR, p = 0.288; DOR, p = 0.183). DOR required less occlusal and clinical adjustment time, on the other hand more laboratory and total workflow time than COR (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The DOR may be an option for obtaining the functional space necessary for the assembly of teeth in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses; however, it requires more working time., Clinical Relevance: The digital occlusal recording method can be used to assess the interocclusal space for the virtual tooth setup of a complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Aim: To evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of real and virtual occlusal contact points in implant-supported, fixed complete dentures., Materials and Methods: The study included 19 participants using mandibular interim complete-arch fixed prosthesis supported by 3 or 4 implants as opposed to conventional removable complete dentures. At installation, an examiner installed the prostheses and verified the occlusal contact points through 2 methods: recording the real contact points with carbon paper (RC) followed by occlusal photography and intraoral scanning (VC) to record the virtual contact points to obtain a screen print of the software. Then, the two images were randomized to determine the order to be inserted into Microsoft PowerPoint for blind and paired evaluation. The independent variables consisted of the distribution of occlusal contacts points (qualification through pre-defined scores based on the position of the contact points on the surfaces of the teeth) and the reproducibility of the methods by verifying the number of occlusal points. For this, a descriptive analysis was used to evaluate the distribution of occlusal contacts points and the Wilcoxon test for the reproducibility of the occlusal contact points between the methods (p<0.05)., Results: The methods had 100% and 73.6% real and virtual occlusal contact points, respectively, which is considered clinically excellent. There was no significant difference regarding the reproducibility of the methods by the number of occlusal contact points (RC: x̅13.32; VC: x̅13.68; p&#61;0.715)., Conclusion: The use of the tested intraoral scanner can be an easy and fast tool for studying and mapping the occlusion, and storing data for future treatment, with the conventional method being the preferred method for performing the occlusal adjustment.

Statement of Problem: Obtaining a passive and well-adapted framework is challenging when intraoral scanning edentulous arches with multiple implants. The trueness of the printed casts is unclear., Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the trueness of frameworks made from conventional and printed casts regarding clinical passivity and misfit., Material and Methods: Ten participants with complete mandibular fixed implant-supported interim prostheses retained by 4 implants were included. Each participant had a conventional impression and a digital scan made. The digital scan was made using an innovative device. Both conventional and digital casts were made, and the virtual images were used for milling the digital framework in cobalt chromium alloy. All frameworks were evaluated for passivity and marginal vertical misfit with the single screw test, with 4 attempts consisting of the tightened screw position, a test with all screws tightened, and an interspersed tightening test. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to evaluate the trueness of the tested device for framework construction through the single screw test on vertical marginal misfit in the conventional and printed groups (α=.008). The Friedman test was used to assess the effect of test type (α=.05), and the Wilcoxon test was used to identify group-to-group differences (α=.017)., Results: The absence of space between the framework and the abutments and interferences during its placement, as well as good stability, were observed clinically. In laboratory analysis, greater framework misfits were observed in the printed group compared with the conventional group when the single screw test was applied. Comparing the 3 tests used, the greatest misfits were observed when the framework was screwed onto the printed cast., Conclusions: The innovative device tested for the intraoral scanning of multiple implants had clinically acceptable accuracy for the construction of passive and adapted frameworks. The conventional cast was more accurate than the printed cast, with lower misfit values, in all tests., (Copyright © 2023 Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Statement of Problem: The assessment of bone loss around implants has been widely studied, but the effect of cantilever length as a risk factor is not fully understood., Purpose: The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the peri-implant bone loss of mandibular complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported (FPS) by 3 and 4 implants and to correlate with the size of the horizontal and vertical distal cantilever at prosthesis installation (T1) and after one year (T2)., Materials and Methods: 72 external hexagon (EH) type implants were installed in 20 participants. Of these, 24 support FPS with 3 implants (GI3) and 48 with 4 implants (GI4). The inferior implants were named 1, 2, 3, and 4 according to their location in the mandibular arch, in a clockwise direction. Digital periapical radiographs were taken at times T1 and T2 for analysis and measurement of peri-implant bone loss. The horizontal and vertical distal cantilevers were measured with a digital caliper and correlated with peri-implant bone loss., Results: The survival rate of implants in GI3 was 91.66%, in GI4 it was 97.91%. The mean bone loss in GI3 was 0.88 (± 0.89) mm and in GI4 it was 0.58 (± 0.78) mm ( P = 0.225). There was no correlation between distal horizontal cantilevers and bone loss in the studied groups, with GI3 being -0.25 ( P =0.197) and GI4-0.22 (0.129). Larger vertical cantilevers of implants 1 ( P =0.018), 3 ( P =0.015) and 4 ( P =0.045) correlated with greater bone loss in GI4., Conclusion: The number of implants in FPS did not influence peri-implant bone loss after 1 year of follow-up. Larger vertical cantilevers influenced greater bone loss in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis supported by 4 implants. Int J Prosthodont. 10.11607/ijp.8347.

Purpose: To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction., Materials and Methods: 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction ( P < .05)., Results: The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) ( P < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) ( P < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI ( P < .005)., Conclusion: Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions., (© 2022 The Korean Academy of Prosthodontics.)

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of the application mode of three universal adhesive systems on interfacial physical properties of indirect composite restorations adhesively cemented to dentin cavities. Seventy-eight bovine lower incisors were selected and a slice of dentin (thickness: 2 mm) between the buccal surface and pulp chamber was obtained for each tooth. Conical cavities were made on this surface. The internal walls of the cavities were then coated with a hydrophilic gel, filled with composite resin and photopolymerized. The dentin/cone sets were divided into 6 groups (n=10) according to type of universal adhesive (TETRI: Tetric N Bond, FUT: Futura Bond U, SBU: Single Bond Universal) and acid etching on dentin (A: with acid etching; WA: without acid etching). The acid etching and the adhesive systems were applied to the surface of the dentin. All composite resin cones were sandblasted (Al2O3, 20 s) and silanized. After surface treatment, the cones were cemented (RelyX Ultimate) into the dentin cavity and photopolymerized. After thermocycling (10,000 cycles), samples were submitted to marginal adaptation analysis (using caries detector dye), push-out test (0.5 mm/min), and failure mode analysis. Additional samples were prepared for nanoleakage analysis (SEM). The data (MPa) were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-test (5%). The groups in which the dentin was acid etched showed significantly lower bond strength values in the push-out test (p<0.01). Dentin acid etching significantly reduced the bond strength between universal adhesive systems and dentin in indirect restorative procedures.

Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness of manual therapy in the treatment of myofascial pain related to temporomandibular disorders., Methods: Randomized clinical trials were searched in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO databases using the following keywords: temporomandibular joint disorders; craniomandibular disorders; myofascial pain syndromes; myofascial pain; exercise therapy; myofunctional therapy; physical therapy modalities; clinical trial; prospective studies; and longitudinal studies. Studies using the RDC/TMD and manual therapy for myofascial pain were included. All studies were evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool., Results: Five studies were included in the present review. Of 279 total patients, 156 were treated with manual therapy only or manual therapy with counseling. Manual therapy was efficient for pain relief in all studies evaluated; however, manual therapy was not better than counseling or botulinum toxin., Conclusion: Manual therapy was better than no treatment in one study and better than counseling in another study; however, manual therapy combined with counseling was not statistically better than counseling alone, and manual therapy alone was not better than botulinum toxin. Manual therapy combined with home therapy was better than home therapy alone in one study. Further studies are required due to the inconclusive data and poor homogeneity found in this review.

Purpose: To evaluate whether treatment with new complete dentures improves quality of life in elderly patients., Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, SciELO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases using specific keywords for relevant articles published up to March 2018. Three reviewers obtained the data and compared the results from reports that evaluated denture wearers 60 years of age or older whose old dentures were replaced with new ones., Results and Conclusion: Of 282 published studies, 7 met the inclusion criteria (5 evaluated quality of life before and after treatment using the Oral Health Impact Profile, 1 using the Oral Impacts by Daily Performance, and 1 using the Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index). The articles showed a similar increase in quality of life after elderly patients were treated with new complete dentures; however, the limited methodologic quality in the reported and analyzed studies underscores the need for more robust controlled investigations to strengthen the current body of evidence, which is limited.