Replacement of unsatisfactory ceramic veneers with the aid of a digital workflow.

This case report focuses on the replacement of ceramic laminate veneers with suboptimal marginal fit and design, employing a digital workflow and CAD-CAM technology. The patient, a woman in her 30s, expressed concerns about the appearance and hygiene challenges of her existing veneers. A comprehensive assessment, including clinical examination, facial photographs and intraoral scanning, was conducted. Utilising CAD software, facial photographs and 3D models merged to create a digital wax-up, crucial in designing suitable veneers and addressing issues like overcontouring and a poor emergence profile. Following the removal of old veneers, a mock-up was performed and approved. Preparations ensured space for restorations with well-defined margins. The final restorations, milled with Leucite-reinforced vitreous ceramic, were cemented. At the 1 year follow-up, improved aesthetics, gingival health and functional restorations were observed. This report highlights the efficacy of digital workflows in achieving consistent and aesthetically pleasing outcomes in ceramic laminate veneer replacement.

Incidence of peri-implant disease associated with cement- and screw-retained implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Implant-supported fixed dental prostheses can be cement- or screw-retained on the implant or abutment, with advantages and disadvantages for each method. Cemented prostheses have been associated with peri-implant disease because cement remnants act as a reservoir for bacteria and hinder biofilm control. However, contrasting evidence has been presented regarding this association based on studies with varying designs, and a systematic review and meta-analysis is required. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to answer the focused question: In patients who received implant-supported prostheses, is the incidence of peri-implant diseases higher in cemented implant-supported prostheses than in screw-retained ones? MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search was conducted using the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), SCOPUS, EMBASE, and ISI Web of Science databases. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that assessed the incidence of peri-implant disease in cement- and screw-retained prostheses were included. Two authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, and analyzed the full texts, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The findings were summarized using meta-analyses with random effects, and the level of certainty of the evidence was determined using the grading of recommendations, assessments, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The search yielded 4455 articles that met the inclusion criteria based on the title and/or abstract selection. A total of 6 RCTs were included for analysis. The meta-analysis revealed no significant difference between cement- and screw-retained prostheses for the risk of peri-implant mucositis (RR: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.42-4.38, P=.61). Similarly, no significant difference was observed between cement- and screw-retained prostheses for the incidence of peri-implantitis (RR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.23-4.31, P=1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate certainty evidence suggests that cement- and screw-retained prostheses present a similar risk for peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Can maxilla and mandible bone quality explain differences in orthodontic mini-implant failures?

Purpose: This study aimed to compare the risk of orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) failure between maxilla and mandible. A critical analysis of finite-element studies was used to explain the contradiction of the greatest clinical success for OMIs placed in the maxilla, despite the higher quality bone of mandible. Materials and Methods: Four tridimensional FE models were built, simulating an OMI inserted in a low-dense maxilla, control maxilla, control mandible, and high-dense mandible. A horizontal force was applied to simulate an anterior retraction of 2 N (clinical scenario) and 10 N (overloading condition). The intra-bone OMI displacement and the major principal bone strains were used to evaluate the risk of failure due to insufficient primary stability or peri-implant bone resorption. Results: The OMI displacement was far below the 50-100 µm threshold, suggesting that the primary stability would be sufficient in all models. However, the maxilla was more prone to lose its stability due to overload conditions, especially in the low-dense condition, in which major principal bone strains surpassed the pathologic bone resorption threshold of 3000 µstrain. Conclusions: The differences in orthodontic mini-implant failures cannot be explained by maxilla and mandible bone quality in finite-element analysis that does not incorporate the residual stress due to OMI insertion.