Search

Objectives: The purpose of this prospective study was to determine the inter- and intraindividual variability in virtual single-tooth implant positioning based on the level of expertise, specialty, total time spent, and the use of a prosthetic tooth setup., Materials and Methods: Virtual implant planning was performed on matched pre- and post-extraction intraoral scans (IOS), and cone-beam computed tomography scans of 15 patients. Twelve individual examiners, involving six novices and experts from oral surgery and prosthodontics positioned the implants, first based on anatomical landmarks utilizing only the post-extraction, and second with the use of the pre-extraction IOS as a setup. The time for implant positioning was recorded. After 1 month, all virtual plannings were performed again. The individual implant positions were superimposed to obtain 3D deviations using a software algorithm., Results: An interindividual variability with mean angular, crestal, and apical positional deviations of 3.8 ± 1.94°, 1.11 ± 0.55, and 1.54 ± 0.66 mm, respectively, was found. When assessing intraindividual variability, deviations of 3.28 ± 1.99°, 0.78 ± 0.46, and 1.12 ± 0.61 mm, respectively, were observed. Implants planned by experts exhibited statistically lower deviations compared to those planned by novices. Longer planning times resulted in lower deviations in the experts' group but not in the novices. Oral surgeons demonstrated lower crestal, but not angular and apical deviations than prosthodontists. The use of a setup only led to minor adjustments., Conclusions: Substantial inter- and intraindividual variability exists during implant positioning utilizing specialized software planning. The level of expertise and the time invested influenced the deviations of the implant position during the planning sequence., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of drilling sequence, guide-hole design, and alveolar ridge morphology on the accuracy of implant placement via static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS)., Materials and Methods: Standardized maxillary bone models including single-tooth gaps with fresh extraction sockets or healed alveolar ridge morphologies were evaluated in this study. Implants were placed using different drilling sequences (i.e., complete [CDS] or minimum [MDS]), and guide-hole designs (i.e., manufacturer's sleeve [MS] or sleeveless [SL] guide-hole designs). The time for implant placement via sCAIS procedures was also recorded. The angular, crestal, and apical three-dimensional deviations between planned and final implant positions were digitally obtained. Statistical analyses were conducted by a non-parametric three-way ANOVA (α = .05)., Results: Based on a sample size analysis, a total of 72 implants were included in this study. Significantly higher implant position accuracy was found at healed sites compared to extraction sockets and in SL compared to MS guide-hole design in angular, crestal, and apical 3D deviations (p ≤ .048). A tendency for higher accuracy was observed for the CDS compared to the MDS, although the effect was not statistically significant (p = .09). The MDS required significantly shorter preparation times compared with CDS (p < .0001)., Conclusion: Implant placement via sCAIS resulted in higher accuracy in healed sites than extraction sockets, when using SL compared to MS guides, and tended to be more accurate when using CDS compared to MDS. Therefore, even though surgery time was shorter with MDS, its use should be limited to strictly selected cases., (© 2023 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: The primary aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of alveolar ridge morphologies on the accuracy of static Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery (sCAIS). The secondary aims were to evaluate the influence of guide-hole design and implant macro-design on the accuracy of the final implant position., Methods: Eighteen standardized partially edentulous maxillary models with two different types of alveolar ridge morphologies were used. Each model was scanned via cone beam computer tomography prior to implant placement and scanned with a laboratory scanner prior to and following implant placement using sCAIS. The postsurgical scans were superimposed on the initial treatment planning position to measure the deviations between planned and postsurgical implant positions., Results: Seventy-two implants were equally distributed to the study groups. Implants placed in healed alveolar ridges showed significantly lower mean deviations at the crest (0.36 ± 0.17 mm), apex (0.69 ± 0.36 mm), and angular deviation (1.86 ± 0.99°), compared to implants placed in fresh extraction sites (0.80 ± 0.29 mm, 1.61 ± 0.59 mm, and 4.33 ± 1.87°; all p<0.0001). Implants placed with a sleeveless guide-hole design demonstrated significantly lower apical (1.02 ± 0.66 mm) and angular (2.72 ± 1.93°) deviations compared to those placed with manufacturer's sleeves (1.27 ± 0.67 mm; p = 0.01, and 3.46 ± 1.9°; p = 0.02). Deep-threaded tapered bone level implants exhibited significantly lower deviations at the crest (0.49 ± 0.28 mm), apex (0.97 ± 0.63 mm), and angular deviations (2.63 ± 1.85°) compared to shallow-threaded parallel-walled bone level implants (0.67 ± 0.34 mm; p = 0.0005, 1.32 ± 0.67 mm; p = 0.003, and 3.56 ± 1.93°; p = 0.01)., Conclusions: The accuracy of the final implant position with sCAIS is determined by the morphology of the alveolar ridge, the design of the guide holes, and the macrodesign of the implant., Clinical Significance: Higher accuracy in the final implant position was observed with implants placed in healed alveolar ridge morphologies, in implants with deep-threaded tapered macro-design, and when sleeveless surgical guide holes were used., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Samir Abou-Ayash: Speaker and consulting honoraria: Straumann AG, (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To investigate short- and long-term bond strength ("repair bond strength"; RBS) of a resin composite to six restorative materials using either a silane and a bonding agent or a universal "one-step self-etch" adhesive system., Methods: Specimens were produced from an amalgam, a direct resin composite, two indirect resin composites, a hybrid ceramic, and a feldspar ceramic and stored for 3 months in tap water (37 °C). All specimens were then sandblasted (Al 2 O 3 ; 25 μm) and either treated with Monobond Plus and OptiBond FL Adhesive (MP-OFL) or with Scotchbond Universal (SBU). Filtek Z250 was used as "repair composite", and RBS was measured by means of a micro shear bond strength test after 24 h or after 1 year. RBS values (n = 15/group) were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05)., Results: RBS (MPa; mean values (standard deviations)) after 24 h for MP-OFL: 18.6 (3.2)-23.9 (5.0) and for SBU: 12.5 (4.9)-18.1 (4.6); after 1 year for MP-OFL: 8.9 (4.6)-19.8 (4.3) and for SBU: 5.6 (2.3)-18.8 (3.5). After 24 h, MP-OFL showed significantly higher RBS to the hybrid ceramic and the feldspar ceramic than did SBU (p ≤ 0.0001) whereas there was no significant difference in RBS for the other four restorative materials. After 1 year, MP-OFL showed significantly higher RBS to the feldspar ceramic than did SBU (p = 0.043) whereas there was no significant difference in RBS for the other five restorative materials., Significance: The use of a silane and a bonding agent seems more versatile for repairing restorations than the use of a universal "one-step self-etch" adhesive system., (Copyright © 2019 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)