Search

In addition to zinc oxide-based cements, resin-based materials are also available for temporary cementation. The aim of this in vitro study was to determine the influence of the different material compositions on temporary bonds. In nine test series (n = 30), temporary bis-acrylate single-tooth crowns were bonded onto prefabricated titanium abutments with nine different temporary luting materials. After simulating an initial (24 h, distilled water, 37 °C), a short-term (7 days, distilled water, 37 °C) and a long-term provisional restoration period (12h, distilled water, 37 °C; thermocycling: 5000 cycles) in subgroups (n = 10), the bond strength was examined using a combined tensile–shear test. Statistical analysis was performed by univariate analysis of variance or a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, followed by post hoc tests. Of the three resin-based materials, two showed significantly higher bond strength values compared to all other materials (p < 0.001), regardless of the storage procedure. The resin-based materials were followed by eugenol-free and eugenol-containing zinc oxide materials. Significant intragroup differences were observed between the composite-based materials after all storage periods. This was only observed for some of the zinc oxide-based materials. The results show that under in vitro conditions, not only the composition of the temporary luting materials but also the different storage conditions have a significant influence on temporary bonds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Implantologie is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of two different nonimplant treatments in the bilateral shortened dental arch (SDA).Materials and Methods: In a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial, patients with complete molar loss in one arch were assigned to one of two different nonimplant treatments. In the partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) group, patients were provided with a distal-extension prosthesis retained with precision attachments. In the SDA group, patients were treated according to the SDA concept by preserving or restoring a premolar occlusion.Results: Of the 152 treated patients, 82 reached the 10-year examination independent of their dental or prosthetic status. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the survival rates for tooth loss at 10 years were 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30 to 0.56) in the PRDP group and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.37 to 0.65) in the SDA group. For tooth loss in the study arch, the survival rates were 0.67 (95% CI: 0.52 to 0.78) in the PRDP group and 0.60 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.73) in the SDA group. The number of teeth lost was higher than expected. In a multivariate analysis using a multiple Cox regression model, the covariates age (unit: 1 year, Hazard Ratio [HR]: 1.033, P = .03) and DMFT value (unit: 1 tooth, HR: 1.121, P = .03) were significant for time to first tooth loss in the study arch.Conclusion: The results suggest an overestimation of the influence of the prosthetic management of the bilateral SDA. In treatment decisions, patient preferences should be considered with appropriate weight. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: For patients with narrow, single-tooth edentulous ridges as a result of permanent tooth agenesis (hypodontia) in the maxillary lateral and mandibular incisor regions, dental implant treatment may present a reliable and predictable restorative treatment solution. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical reliability and outcome of small-diameter dental implants placed in a one-stage procedure with early loading replacing maxillary lateral or mandibular incisor teeth.Materials and Methods: Patients with hypodontia in the maxillary lateral incisor or mandibular incisor region analyzed in this report were selected from a larger prospective multicenter study. Small-diameter dental implants (AstraTech OsseoSpeed TX 3.0 S, Dentsply) of different lengths were placed using a one-stage surgical protocol with a 6- to 10-week healing period before loading. Probing pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and gingival zenith score were assessed after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Radiographic examination was assessed at 6, 12, and 36 months.Results: In total, 38 patients were included in this analysis and 62 small-diameter implants were placed. The mean distance between adjacent teeth was 6.30 mm (SD: 1.36). All patients received a titanium transmucosal abutment and cement-retained ceramic crown after 6 to 10 weeks of healing. Two implants were lost during the healing period before loading, providing a total implant survival rate of 96.8%. No implant fractures were reported. Mean marginal bone level change from surgery to follow-up visits at 6, 12, and 36 months were 0.39 mm, 0.22 mm, and 0.23 mm, respectively. The condition of soft tissue was stable at all follow-up visits with clinically insignificant changes in probing depth, bleeding on probing, and gingival zenith score.Conclusion: This study evaluated the behavior over 36 months of AstraTech Osseospeed TX 3.0 S dental implants placed into narrow one-tooth defect edentulous ridges as a result of hypodontia. The data collected highlighted the stability of the marginal bone level and soft tissues around the dental implants in conjunction with durable mechanical function. Small-diameter implants can be considered a valid solution in the restorative treatment of hypodontia in the maxillary lateral and mandibular incisor regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Various treatment options for the prosthetic treatment of jaws where all molars are lost are under discussion. Besides the placement of implants, two main treatment types can be distinguished: replacement of the missing molars with removable dental prostheses and non-replacement of the molars, i.e. preservation of the shortened dental arch. Evidence is lacking regarding the long-term outcome and the clinical performance of these approaches. High treatment costs and the long time required for the treatment impede respective clinical trials. Methods/design This 14-center randomized controlled investigator-initiated trial is ongoing. Last patient out will be in 2010. Patients over 35 years of age with all molars missing in one jaw and with at least both canines and one premolar left on each side were eligible. One group received a treatment with removable dental prostheses for molar replacement (treatment A). The other group received a treatment limited to the replacement of all missing anterior and premolar teeth using fixed bridges (treatment B). A pilot trial with 32 patients was carried out. Two hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled in the main trial where 109 patients were randomized for treatment A and 106 for treatment B. The primary outcome measure is further tooth loss during the 5-year follow-up. The secondary outcome measures encompassed clinical, technical and subjective variables. The study is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation, DFG WA 831/2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5). Discussion The particular value of this trial is the adaptation of common design components to the very specific features of complex dental prosthetic treatments. The pilot trial proved to be indispensable because it led to a number of adjustments in the study protocol that considerably improved the practicability. The expected results are of high clinical relevance and will show the efficacy of two common treatment approaches in terms of oral health. An array of secondary outcome measures will deliver valuable supplementary information. If the results can be implemented in the clinical practice, the daily dental care should strongly profit thereof. Trial registration The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under ISRCTN68590603 (pilot trial) and ISRCTN97265367 (main trial).