RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Extraction of impacted third molars often leads to severe complications caused by damage to the inferior alveolar nerve (IAN). AIM: To proposes a method for the partial grinding of an impacted mandibular third molar (IMM3) near the IAN to prevent IAN injury during IMM3 extraction. METHODS: Between January 1996 and March 2022, 25 patients with IMM3 roots near the IAN were enrolled. The first stage of the operation consisted of grinding a major part of the IMM3 crown with a high-speed turbine dental drill to achieve sufficient space between the mandibular second molar and IMM3. After 6 months, when the root tips were observed to be away from the IAN on X-ray examination, the remaining part of the IMM3 was completely removed. RESULTS: All IMM3s were extracted easily without symptoms of IAN injury after extraction. CONCLUSION: Partial IMM3 grinding may be a good alternative treatment option to avoid IAN injury in high-risk cases.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To compare stress distribution and failure probability in maxillary premolars restored by simple occlusal veneer (SOV) and buccal-occlusal veneer (BOV) with 3 different CAD/CAM materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary premolar was digitized by a micro-CT scanner. Three-dimensional dynamic scan data were transformed, and finite element models of 2 different models (SOV and BOV restored teeth) were designed. Three different CAD/CAM materials, including lithium disilicate glass ceramic (LD) IPS e.max CAD, polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN) Vita Enamic, and resin nano-ceramic (RNC) Lava Ultimate, were designated to both veneers. Maximum principle stresses were determined by applying a 300-N axial load to the occlusal surface. Weibull analyses were performed to calculate the failure probability of the models. RESULTS: LD-restored teeth showed the highest stress in the veneer, lowest stress in substrate teeth, and lowest failure probability for the overall system; RNC-restored teeth showed the lowest stress in the veneer, highest stress in substrate teeth, and highest failure probability. No significant differences were found in the cement layer among the different models. No significant differences of stress and failure probability existed between SOV and BOV preparations. CONCLUSIONS: CAD/CAM composite resin occlusal veneers bear lower maximum stress than ceramic veneers. Teeth restored by composite veneers are more prone to failure than those restored by ceramic veneers. Additional reduction of the buccal surface did not increase the stress on the occlusal veneer under axial load. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both occlusal veneers could be used under physiological masticatory force. CAD/CAM glass ceramic was safer than composite resins.
