Quantitative analysis of the selective pressure impression technique using CAD-CAM technology: A pilot clinical study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Quantitative 3D clinical analysis of the selective pressure impression technique directly measuring tissue displacement during impression making for complete maxillary dentures is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to digitally compare impressions made of the edentulous maxillary ridge by using the selective pressure impression technique with different amounts of relief incorporated into custom tray designs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine participants receiving maxillary complete dentures were enrolled in the study. An initial custom tray was fabricated in urethane dimethacrylate by using the alternative border molding technique without relief and scanned to create a standard tessellation language (STL) file from which 3 groups of custom trays were designed and 3D printed with 0.0-mm (no relief), 1.0-mm, and 3.0-mm relief over the anterior ridge and median palatal suture. Definitive impressions using each of the 4 custom trays were made with a consistent volume of light-body polyvinyl siloxane impression material. The definitive impressions were scanned, and the STL files were superimposed to investigate the topographical differences among the groups, each with respect to the no relief, 3D-printed custom tray definitive impression. Mean volumetric differences for all 3 groups were measured in areas where relief was used and statistically analyzed with the Friedman test (α=.05). RESULTS: No significant difference was found among any of the 3 groups of superimposed impressions in areas of no relief, 1.0-mm, and 3.0-mm relief (P=.558). The mean difference ±standard deviation for each comparison in regions of the anterior ridge and median palatal suture were 0.07 ±0.06 mm for no relief, -0.03 ±0.07 mm for the 1.0-mm tray relief, and -0.04 ±0.09 mm for the 3.0-mm tray relief. The negative values in mean difference indicated less compression of underlying tissues compared with the reference border molded urethane dimethacrylate custom tray impression. CONCLUSIONS: Although results showed less compression when compared with that of the control group, custom tray relief of 1.0 mm and 3.0 mm over the anterior residual alveolar ridge and median palatal suture did not significantly impact the resulting impression topography when compared with no relief custom trays.

Dental Applications of Natural-Origin Polymers in Hard and Soft Tissue Engineering.

Clinical advances in the treatment of dentoalveolar defects continue to evolve with the introduction of new innovations in regenerative medicine and tissue bioengineering. Recent developments in tissue engineering are aimed at safely and effectively regenerating a damaged or necrotic area by replenishing its cells and increasing surrounding gene expression. Various techniques have successfully given rise to porous scaffolds being used by clinicians to treat the defect and initiate the repair process. Tissue reconstruction using bioengineered scaffolds is advantageous over traditional autografting, since it prevents the instigation of pain and donor site morbidity while ultimately creating both the environment and machinery needed to induce cell proliferation, migration, and reattachment within the affected area. This review article aims to describe and review the available literature regarding the regenerative capacity of natural polymers used for the treatment of dentoalveolar defects. The repair mechanisms, advantages of protein and polysaccharide derivatives, and the potential of stem cell therapy are discussed.

A long-term retrospective analysis of survival rates of implants in the mandible.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively analyze the survival rate of endosseous dental implants placed in the edentulous or partially edentulous mandible over a long-term follow-up period of 10 years or more. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The charts of patients who underwent mandibular implant placement at a private prosthodontics practice and received follow-up care for 10 years or more were included in this study. Implants were examined according to the following study variables: patient sex, patient age, degree of edentulism (fully vs partially edentulous), implant location, time of loading (delayed vs immediate), implant size and type, bone quality, prosthesis type, and the presence of other implants during placement. RESULTS: The study sample was composed of 2,394 implants placed in 470 patients with 10 to 27 years of follow-up. Of these 2,394 implants, 176 failed, resulting in an overall cumulative survival rate (CSR) of 92.6%. A total of 1,482 implants were placed in edentulous mandibles, and 912 implants were placed in partially edentulous mandibles, with CSRs of 92.6% and 92.7%, respectively. Comparisons of the study variables with respect to CSR were largely nonsignificant. However, there were significant differences in CSRs between anterior vs posterior locations and rough- vs smooth-surfaced implants in addition to some prosthesis types, ages, and bone qualities. The overall CSR of 92.6% in the present study is high and comparable to survival rates observed in previous long-term analyses of mandibular implants. The significant differences observed between implant locations, patient age groups, bone qualities, and prostheses were not suggestive of any remarkable trends. CONCLUSION: Patient sex, age, degree of edentulism, implant location, time of loading, implant size and type, bone quality, prosthesis type, and the presence of multiple implants did not result in any significant effect on long-term implant survival. The CSR observed after 10 to 27 years of follow-up in a single private prosthodontic center was high (92.6%) and supports the use of endosseous dental implants as a long-term treatment option for the rehabilitation of the edentulous and partially edentulous mandible.