Search

Aim To assess in vitro the workflow for alveolar ridge augmentation with customised 3D printed block grafts and simultaneous computer-assisted implant planning and placement. Methods Twenty resin mandible models with an edentulous area and horizontal ridge defect in the region 34–36 were scanned with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). A block graft for horizontal ridge augmentation in the region 34–36 and an implant in the position 35 were digitally planned. Twenty block grafts were 3D printed out of resin and one template for guided implant placement were stereolithographically produced. The resin block grafts were positioned onto the ridge defects and stabilised with two fixation screws each. Subsequently, one implant was inserted in the position 35 through the corresponding template for guided implant placement. Optical scans of the study models together with the fixated block graft were performed prior to and after implant placement. The scans taken after block grafting were superimposed with the virtual block grafting plan through a best-fit algorithm, and the linear deviation between the planned and the achieved block positions was calculated. The precision of the block fixation was obtained by superimposing the 20 scans taken after grafting and calculating the deviation between the corresponding resin blocks. The superimposition between the scans taken after and prior to implant placement was performed to measure a possible displacement in the block position induced by guided implant placement. The (98–2%)/2 percentile value was determined as a parameter for surface deviation. Results The mean deviation in the position of the block graft compared to the virtual plan amounted to 0.79 ± 0.13 mm. The mean deviation between the positions of the 20 block grafts measured 0.47 ± 0.2 mm, indicating a clinically acceptable precision. Guided implant placement induced a mean shift of 0.16 ± 0.06 mm in the position of the block graft. Conclusions Within the limitation

OBJECTIVE To assess time efficiency and the efficacy of the prosthetic manufacturing for implant crown fabrication in a centralized workflow applying computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM). MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty-nine patients with one posterior implant each, were randomly allocated to either a centralized digital workflow (c-DW, test) or a laboratory digital workflow (l-DW, control). Patients were excluded from efficiency and efficacy analyses, if any additional restoration than this single implant crown had to be fabricated. A customized titanium abutment and a monolithic zirconia crown were fabricated in the c-DW. In the l-DW, models were digitalized for CAD-CAM fabrication of a monolithic zirconia crown using a standardized titanium base abutment. Time for impression, laboratory operating and delivery time were recorded. The efficacy of the prosthetic manufacturing was evaluated at try-in and at delivery. Data was analyzed descriptively. Statistical analyses using student's unpaired t- and paired Wilcoxon were performed (p < 0.05). RESULTS At impression taking, 12 patients (c-DW) and 19 patients (l-DW) were included. The impression time was 9.4±3.5 min (c-DW) and 15.1 ± 4.6 min (l-DW) (p < 0.05). The laboratory operating time was 130 ± 31 min (c-DW) and 218.0±8 min (l-DW) (p < 0.05). The delivery time was significantly longer in the c-DW (5.9 ± 3.5 1 days) as compared to the l-DW (0.5±0.05 days). At try-in and at delivery, efficacy of prosthetic manufacturing was similar high in both workflows. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The c-DW was more time efficient compared to the lab-DW and rendered a similar efficacy of prosthetic manufacturing.

OBJECTIVES: The load-bearing capacity of ultra-thin occlusal veneers made of 3D-printed zirconia were compared to the ones obtained by fabricating these reconstructions by CAD/CAM milling zirconia or heat-pressing lithium-disilicate. METHODS: On 60 extracted human molars, the occlusal enamel was removed and extended into dentin. Occlusal veneers of 0.5 mm thickness were digitally designed. The specimens were divided into 3 groups (n = 20 each) differing in the restorative material and the fabrication technique of the occlusal veneer. (1) 3DP: 3D-printed zirconia (Lithoz); (2): CAM: milled zirconia (Ceramill Zolid FX); (3) HPR: heat-pressed lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press). After conditioning procedures, the restorations were adhesively bonded onto the conditioned tooth. Thereafter, all specimens were aged in a chewing simulator by exposure to cyclic fatigue and temperature variations. Subsequently the specimens were statically loaded and the load which was necessary to decrease the maximum load by 20% and initiate a crack (F$_{initial}$) and the load which was needed to fracture the specimen (F$_{max}$) were measured. Differences between the groups were compared applying the Kruskal-Wallis (KW) test and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-Test (WMW: p < 0.05). RESULTS: The median F$_{initial}$ values for the groups 3DP, CAM and HPR were 1'650 N, 1'250 N and 500 N. The differences between all three groups were statistically significant (KW: p < 0.0001). The median F$_{max}$ values amounted to 2'026 N for the group 3DP, 1'500 N for the group CAM and 1'555 N for the group HPR. Significant differences were found between 3DP and CAM (WMW: p = 0.0238). SIGNIFICANCE: Regarding their load-bearing capacity, 3D-printed or milled zirconia, as well as heat-pressed lithium disilicate, can be recommended as restorative material for ultra-thin occlusal veneers to prosthetically compensate for occlusal tooth wear. Despite statistically significant differences between the restoration mate

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bone augmentation procedures to enable dental implant placement are frequently performed. The remit of this working group was to evaluate the current evidence on the efficacy of regenerative measures for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The discussions were based on four systematic reviews focusing on lateral bone augmentation with implant placement at a later stage, vertical bone augmentation, reconstructive treatment of peri-implantitis associated defects, and long-term results of lateral window sinus augmentation procedures. RESULTS: A substantial body of evidence supports lateral bone augmentation prior to implant placement as a predictable procedure in order to gain sufficient ridge width for implant placement. Also, vertical ridge augmentation procedures were in many studies shown to be effective in treating deficient alveolar ridges to allow for dental implant placement. However, for both procedures the rate of associated complications was high. The adjunctive benefit of reconstructive measures for the treatment of peri-implantitis-related bone defects has only been assessed in a few RCTs. Meta-analyses demonstrated a benefit with regard to radiographic bone gain but not for clinical outcomes. Lateral window sinus floor augmentation was shown to be a reliable procedure in the long-term for the partially and fully edentulous maxilla. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluated bone augmentation procedures were proven to be effective for the reconstruction of alveolar ridge defects. However, some procedures are demanding and bear a higher risk for postoperative complications. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.