RESUMEN
AIMS: To histologically compare osseointegration and crestal bone healing between newly introduced tapered, self-cutting bone-level test implants and tapered bone-level control implants in sites with fully healed sites. METHODS: Sixty-six implants (33 test, 33 control) were placed 1 mm subcrestally in a minipig model and underwent qualitative histologic and quantitative histometric analyses after 3, 6 and 12 weeks of submerged healing. The primary and secondary outcomes were the bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and first bone-to-implant contact (fBIC). Outcomes between the test and control implants were statistically compared. RESULTS: The BIC values of the test implants were comparable and non-inferior over the time points studied, except for the 12 weeks time point which showed statistically significantly higher BIC values of the test (88.07 ± 5.35%) compared to the control implants (80.88 ± 7.51%) (p = .010). Similarly comparable and non-inferior were the fBIC values, except for the 6-week outcome, which showed statistically higher values for the test (-546.5 ± 450.80 µm) compared to the control implants (-75.7 ± 100.59 µm). fBIC results for the test implants were qualitatively more stable and consistent between test time points. CONCLUSION: Novel self-cutting bone-level test implants demonstrated superior osseointegration and similar bone levels compared to conventional bone-level implants after a healing period of 12 weeks in healed ridges.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence on the effect of magnification devices on procedure quality in restorative dentistry is scant. This study therefore aimed to assess, under simulated clinical conditions, if magnification loupes affect the quality of preparations carried out by undergraduate dental students. METHODS: 59 undergraduate dental students underwent two visual acuity tests, based on which they were divided into a "low visual acuity group" (visus < 1) and a "good visual acuity group" (visus ≥ 1). In a randomized crossover experiment, participants performed a two-dimensional S and a three-dimensional O figure preparation with a dental handpiece on standardized acrylic blocs designed for preclinical restorative training. Each participant carried out the preparation tasks twice, once with magnification loupes (2.5×) and once without. Two blinded investigators independently evaluated parameters of preparation precision. Data were analyzed using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, intra-class correlation coefficients, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Participants from the "low visual acuity group" did not show a statistically significant improvement in accuracy when they used magnification loupes for the S figure preparation (p ≥ 0.0625). Participants from the "high visual acuity group" obtained a higher level of accuracy (p ≤ 0.0012) when they used magnification loupes for the S figure preparation. The use of magnification loupes had no statistically significant effect on the accuracy parameters of the O figure cavity preparations (p ≥ 0.1865). Participants with high visual acuity achieved only a marginally better accuracy than participants with a visus < 1. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that loupes with 2.5× magnification increase the accuracy of two-dimensional preparations while they have no significant effect, favorable or otherwise, on the accuracy of complex, three-dimensional cavity preparations of untrained dental students.