Verification of the accuracy of dynamic navigation for conventional and mouthpiece methods: in vivo study.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic navigation for implant placement is becoming popular under the concept of top-down treatment. The purpose of this study is to verify the accuracy of a dynamic navigation system for implant placement. METHODS: Implant placement was performed on 38 patients using 50 implant fixtures. Patients in group C were treated using a conventional method, in which thermoplastic clips were fixed to the teeth, and patients in group M were treated using thermoplastic clips fixed to a mouthpiece attached to the teeth. The groups were compared to verify whether an accuracy difference existed. A treatment planning support program for dental implants was used to superimpose the postoperative computed tomography data on the preoperative implant design data to measure the entry point, apex point, and angular deviation. RESULTS: The accuracy of group C was 1.36 ± 0.51 mm for entry point, 1.30 ± 0.59 mm for apex point, and 3.20 ± 0.74° for angular deviation. The accuracy of group M was 1.06 ± 0.31 mm for the entry point, 1.02 ± 0.30 mm for the apex point, and 2.91 ± 0.97° for angular deviation. Significant differences were observed in the entry and apex points between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that group M exhibited better accuracy than group C, indicating that the stability of the thermoplastic clip is important for ensuring the accuracy of the dynamic navigation system. No previous studies have verified the accuracy of this system using the mouthpiece method, and additional data is required to confirm its accuracy for dental implant placement. The mouthpiece method improves the accuracy of implant placement and provides a safer implant treatment than the conventional method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), Registration Number: UMIN000051949, URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view_his.cgi on August 21, 2023.

Volume change after maxillary sinus floor elevation with apatite carbonate and octacalcium phosphate.

PURPOSE: Maxillary molars have low alveolar bone height diameter due to the presence of the maxillary sinus; thus, a sinus lift may be required in some cases. Changes in the volume of bone substitutes can affect the success of implant therapy. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the changes in the volume of two different bone substitutes-one based on carbonate apatite and the other on octacalcium phosphate-used in maxillary sinus floor elevation. METHODS: Nineteen patients and 20 sites requiring maxillary sinus floor elevation were included in the study. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine data for each patient obtained preoperatively and immediately and 6 months postoperatively were used to measure the volume of the bone grafting material using a three-dimensional image analysis software. The immediate postoperative volume of octacalcium phosphate was 95.3775 mm3 per piece of grafting material used. It was multiplied by the number of pieces used and converted to mL to determine the immediate postoperative volume. RESULTS: The mean resorption values of carbonate apatite and octacalcium phosphate were 12.7 ± 3.6% and 17.3 ± 3.9%, respectively. A significant difference in the amount of resorption of the two bone replacement materials was observed (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that both bone substitute materials tend to resorb. The two bone grafting materials that are currently medically approved in Japan have not been in the market for a long time, and their long-term prognosis has not yet been reported. Further clinical data are warranted.

Comparative Verification of the Accuracy of Implant Models Made of PLA, Resin, and Silicone.

Polylactic acid (PLA) has gained considerable attention as an alternative to petroleum-based materials due to environmental concerns. We fabricated implant models with fused filament fabrication (FFF) 3D printers using PLA, and the accuracies of these PLA models were compared with those of plaster models made from silicone impressions and resin models made with digital light processing (DLP). A base model was obtained from an impact-training model. The scan body was mounted on the plaster, resin, and PLA models obtained from the base model, and the obtained information was converted to stereolithography (STL) data by the 3D scanner. The base model was then used as a reference, and its data were superimposed onto the STL data of each model using Geomagic control. The horizontal and vertical accuracies of PLA models, as calculated using the Tukey-Kramer method, were 97.2 ± 48.4 and 115.5 ± 15.1 µm, respectively, which suggests that the PLA model is the least accurate among the three models. In both cases, significant differences were found between PLA and gypsum and between the PLA and resin models. However, considering that the misfit of screw-retained implant frames should be ≤150 µm, PLA can be effectively used for fabricating implant models.

Fit accuracy of resin crown on a dental model fabricated using fused deposition modeling 3D printing and a polylactic acid filament.

Purpose We considered the possibility of reducing industrial waste by fabricating and reusing dental models prepared using a fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printer and polylactic acid (PLA) filaments. The purpose of this study was to verify the accuracy of models fabricated using FDM and PLA.Methods The same provisional crown was used to check the marginal fit on PLA models prepared using an intraoral scanner (IOS) and FDM, plaster models made with silicone impression material and plaster, and resin models prepared using an IOS and stereolithography apparatus (SLA) 3D printer. The marginal fit was measured using micro-computed tomography at four points on the tooth: the buccal center (B), palatal center (P), mesial center (M), and distal center (D) points.Results At point B, the marginal gaps were 118 ± 21.7, 62 ± 16.4, and 50 ± 26.5 µm for the PLA, resin, and plaster models, respectively, with a significant difference between the PLA model and the other two. However, the marginal gap at all other measurement points was not significantly different between the models (P > 0.05).Conclusions We compared the accuracy of the models fabricated using the FDM, SLA, and conventional methods. The combination of FDM and PLA filaments showed no significant differences from the other models, except at point B, indicating its usefulness. Therefore, FDM and PLA may become necessary materials for dental treatment in the future.

Validation of an implant stability measurement device using the percussion response: a clinical research study.

BACKGROUND: Several devices have been developed to measure implant-bone stability as an indicator of successful implant treatment; these include Osstell®, which measures the implant stability quotient (ISQ), and the more recent AnyCheck®, which relies on percussion for the implant stability test (IST). These devices make it possible to measure implant stability. However, no studies have compared the performance of AnyCheck® and Osstell® (i.e., IST and ISQ values) in clinical practice. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the correlation between primary and secondary implant stability using the Osstell® and AnyCheck® devices. METHODS: Ten patients (7 women; age [mean ± standard deviation]: 49.1 ± 13.3 years) with partially edentulous jaws who received a total of 15 implants were included. IST (AnyCheck®) and ISQ (Osstell®) values were measured immediately after implantation and at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 weeks post-implantation. Each measurement was performed three times, and the average value was used as the result. The correlation between measurements obtained using the two devices was determined using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The IST values ranged from 79.1 ± 2.87 to 82.4 ± 2.65. The ISQ values ranged from 76.0 ± 2.8 to 80.2 ± 2.35. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was r = 0.64 immediately after implantation, r = 0.29 at 1 week, r = 0.68 at 2 weeks, r = 0.53 at 3 weeks, r = 0.68 at 4 weeks, and r = 0.56 at 6 weeks. A positive correlation was found in all cases, except at week 1 when the correlation was weak; the IST and ISQ values decreased the most during the first postoperative week and increased during the second week. The IST values were also slightly higher at all measurement points. CONCLUSION: The ability to assess implant stability without removing the abutment during healing is essential for determining the timing of loading without the risk of bone resorption. The results of this study suggest that AnyCheck® is useful for determining primary and secondary implant stability.

Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle.

BACKGROUND: The use of intraoral scanners (IOS) has facilitated the use of digital workflows for the fabrication of implant-supported prostheses not only for single missing teeth, but also for multiple missing teeth. However, the clinical application of IOS and computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in implant-supported prosthodontics remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants for bounded edentulous spaces and two-unit and three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses for free-end edentulous spaces. METHODS: This study enrolled 30 patients (n = 10 for each of the three groups) with an average age of 61.9 years. Conventional silicone-based and digital IOS-based impressions were made for all patients, and the implant superstructures were fabricated. We measured the scan-body misfit and compared the accuracy of the impressions for single-unit, two-unit, and three-unit implant prostheses with a bounded edentulous space by superimposing the standard triangulated language (STL) data obtained from IOS over the STL data of the plaster model used for final prosthesis fabrication. The scan bodies of the superimposed single-molar implant, two-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the mesial side, two-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the distal side, three-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the mesial side, and three-unit implant prosthesis without teeth on the distal side were designated as A, B1, B2, C1, and C2, respectively. The misfit for each scan body was calculated and the accuracies were compared using the Tukey-Kramer method. RESULTS: The average scan-body misfit for conditions A, B1, B2, C1, and C2 was 40.5 ± 18.9, 45.4 ± 13.4, 56.5 ± 9.6, 50.7 ± 14.9, and 80.3 ± 12.4 µm, respectively. Significant differences were observed between the accuracies of A and B2, A and C2, and C1 and C2 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IOS and CAD/CAM can find clinical applications for implant-supported prostheses of up to three units for a bounded edentulous saddle. The use of IOS could render implant treatment easier, benefiting both the surgeons and patients. Prosthesis maladjustment may lead to peri-implantitis and prosthetic fracture. Therefore, further validation of the accuracy of IOS impressions is required in patients with multiple missing teeth in long-span implant prostheses.

Accuracy of guided surgery using the silicon impression and digital impression method for the mandibular free end: a comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Implant treatment using guided surgery is becoming widespread in clinical dental practice. Furthermore, the development of digital technology has enabled the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) to fabricate surgical guide plates. The objective of this study was to compare the accuracy of guided surgery using the silicone impression method with a three-dimensional (3D) scanner and the digital impression method with IOS for one side of the mandibular free end. In addition, we compared the accuracy of tooth-supported vs tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plates. RESULTS: The accuracy of the tooth-supported surgical guide plate using the new IOS method instead of the method of obtaining impressions with conventional silicone resulted in better measurements of 3D deviation at the crest, 3D deviation at the apex, and angular deviation. In terms of the accuracy of the tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate, there were no significant differences in all measurements. The surgical guide plate using an IOS and the tooth/mucosa-supported surgical guide plate may enable more accurate guided surgery. CONCLUSION: Tooth/mucosa-supported guided surgery involving preparation with an IOS may result in more accurate implant surgery.

Dental implant care and trouble among dependent patients based on the questionnaire survey among Japanese dental practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Self-care and professional care of implants may prove difficult for elderly people who require nursing care. However, the actual state of care and problems remains unknown. In this study, we investigated the actual state of implant problems in elderly people living in their own home or in a nursing home who received visiting dental treatment. METHODS: We mailed questionnaire survey forms to 2339 representatives or specialists who were members of the Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, the Japanese Society of Gerodontology or the Japan Prosthodontic Society. We narrowed down the respondents to those who provided visiting dental treatment, and analyzed the actual state of implants observed during visiting dental treatment (type, care, problems, countermeasures, etc.). RESULTS: Of the 924 dentists who responded to the questionnaire survey, 291 (22%) provided visiting dental treatment. While the majority of implant types encountered in the previous 12 months were root-form implants, there were still a certain number of blade and subperiosteal implants. Daily implant care involved mostly cleaning with a toothbrush + auxiliary tools. The most frequent implant problems encountered in the past were difficulty in cleaning and peri-implantitis. Medication and antiphlogistic treatment were most frequently adopted as countermeasures to implant problems, followed by observation. When we classified the results into those for the dentists who provided implant treatment and those for the dentists who did not, we found that many of the dentists who did not provide implant treatment opted for observation or medication, while those who provided implant treatment also implemented removal of superstructure, retightening of screws, repair and so forth. CONCLUSIONS: We found that many of the implant troubles encountered by dentists who provided visiting dental care were difficulty in cleaning or peri-implantitis, and that the actions taken against these troubles varied depending on the experience of the dentist performing the implant treatment. Our study also revealed that dentists who provide visiting dental care need to acquire knowledge and skills of implant treatment, to have actions prepared in case they encounter such cases, or to closely coordinate with dentists who specialize in implants.

A preliminary report on dental implant condition among dependent elderly based on the survey among Japanese dental practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to ascertain the situation relevant to implants, the status of oral self-care, the status of aftercare provided by the dentist who placed the implant, and the usage status of the implant card, in homebound or institutionalized older adults who are receiving home-visit dental care due to the inability to visit a dental clinic on their own. METHODS: A survey questionnaire was sent by post mail to 2339 people who are representative members or dental specialists belonging to any of the following three academic societies: Japanese Society of Oral Implantology, Japanese Society of Gerodontology, and Japan Prosthodontic Society. The survey questions asked were about provision/no provision of implant treatment, provision/no provision of home-visit dental care, the situation of patients after implant treatment, the situation of implants in the context of home-visit dental care, and the usage status and recognition of the implant card. RESULTS: No less than 30% of the dentists had patients who were admitted to the hospital or became homebound after receiving implant treatment at their clinic. Twenty-two percent of the dentists had been consulted about the implants. Dentists who continued to provide post-operative implant care through home-visit dental care accounted for approximately 80%. On the other hand, however, 40% of the dentists did not know the post-implantation status of their implant patients. Of the patients receiving home-visit dental care, approximately 3% had implants (identified mainly by visual inspection). It was found that more than 50% of the dentists offering implant treatment did not use the implant card, and even in cases where it was used, most of the cards were not in the standardized format. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of low response rate to the questionnaire in this preliminary study, we concluded that many of practitioners including specialists indicated the need of universal record of implant for dependent elderly cares.

Methods used to assess implant stability: current status.

Successful osseointegration is a prerequisite for functional dental implants. Continuous monitoring in an objective and quantitative manner is important to determine the status of implant stability. Historically, the gold standard method used to evaluate degree of osseointegration was microscopic or histologic analysis. However, due to the invasiveness of this method and related ethical issues, various other methods of analysis have been proposed: radiographs, cutting torque resistance, reverse torque, modal analysis, and resonance frequency analysis. This review focuses on the methods currently available for the evaluation of implant stability. (More than 50 references.)