Influence of abutment disconnection on peri-implant marginal bone loss: A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of abutment disconnections and reconnections on peri-implant marginal bone loss. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-four participants received single-unit implants and were randomly assigned into one of the two groups: the definitive abutment group (DEF), in which the definitive abutments were connected at the same time as the implant was inserted; and as a control, the healing abutment group (HEA), in which the healing abutments were disconnected and reconnected three times, at 8, 10, and 12 weeks after surgery. Peri-implant marginal bone level was measured through radiographic follow-up performed immediately after the surgery (baseline), at 8 weeks and after 6, 12, and 24 months. Implant stability and peri-implant health were assessed by resonance frequency analysis and peri-implant probing, respectively. RESULTS: At the end of 2 years, the mean bone level was -0.18 ± 0.12 mm for the DEF group and -0.13 ± 0.13 mm for the HEA group, resulting in a cumulative bone loss of -0.61 ± 0.10 mm and -0.81 ± 0.15 mm, respectively, with no statistical difference between groups. Bone level changes showed statistically significant differences only between 0 and 2 months (DEF: -0.70 ± 0.12 mm; HEA: -0.36 ± 0.10 mm) and between 2 and 6 months (DEF: -0.11 ± 0.11 mm; HEA: -0.65 ± 0.14 mm). No differences were observed between the groups for implant stability, probing depth, and bleeding on probing. CONCLUSION: Immediate connection of the prosthetic abutments did not reduce bone loss in comparison with three disconnections of the healing abutments.

Impression of Subgingival Dental Preparation Can Be Taken with Ultrasound.

Because of its ability to capture hard structures behind soft tissue, ultrasound-based micro-scanning may be a promising alternative for taking digital impressions of teeth, especially in the case of subgingival margin preparations. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of ultrasound impressions taken of subgingivally prepared teeth compared with digital optical impressions. Ten extracted human teeth (7 pre-molars, 3 molars) were prepared for crowns with chamfer finish line and then digitized using two different intra-oral scanners (Cara Trios, 3 Shape, Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany; and Lava COS; 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) and one extra-oral scanner (Cares CS2, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland). Afterward, the preparation margin was covered with porcine gingiva (thickness ranged between 0.3 and 0.9 mm), and every sample was scanned with a high-frequency ultrasound scanner under experimental subgingival conditions. Optical scanning processes were performed without gingiva. The data sets were superimposed on each other for pairwise comparisons, and deviations between different scans were determined using a 3-D evaluation software (CloudCompare). Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc tests (Dunn-Bonferroni) were applied to detect significant differences at p ≤ 0.05. The ultrasound scanner was able to detect subgingival preparation margins. Mean deviations for all comparisons ranged from 12.34 to 46.38 µm. There were no statistically significant differences between superimpositions of intra-oral and extra-oral scans (Trios-Lava, Lava-CS2, Trios-CS2), whereas in comparisons between intra-/extra-oral scans and ultrasound scans, mean deviations were statistically significantly higher. There were no significant differences with respect to type of tooth (pre-molar and molar). However, gingiva thickness was significantly correlated with the quality of the ultrasound scan; thin layers had better image quality than thicker layers. Ultrasound was able to scan tooth preparation margins covered with gingiva, although with less accuracy than achieved by conventional optical scanners (non-covered margins). Gingiva thickness may play an important role in ultrasound scan accuracy.

Accuracy of single crowns fabricated from ultrasound digital impressions.

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate marginal and internal fit of single crowns produced from high-frequency ultrasound based digital impressions of teeth prepared with finish lines covered by porcine gingiva, in comparison with those obtained by optical scanners with uncovered finish lines. METHODS: Ten human teeth were prepared and forty zirconia crowns were fabricated from STL-datasets obtained from four dental scanners (n=10): extraoral CS2 (Straumann), intraoral Lava COS (3M), intraoral Trios (3Shape) and extraoral ultrasound scanner. The accuracy of the crowns was compared evaluating marginal and internal fit by means of the replica technique with measurements in four areas; P1: occlusal surface; P2: transition between occlusal and axial surfaces; P3: middle of axial wall; and P4: marginal gap. Restoration margins were classified according to their mismatch as regular, underextended or overextended. Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test were used to evaluate the differences between groups at p<0.05. RESULTS: The median value of marginal gap (P4) for Ultrasound (113.87µm) differed statistically from that of CS2 (39.74µm), Lava COS (41.98µm) and Trios (42.07µm). There were no statistical differences between ultrasound and Lava COS for internal misfit (P1-P3), however there were statistical differences when compared with the other two scanners (Trios and CS2) at P1 and P2. SIGNIFICANCE: The ultrasound scanner was able to make digital impressions of prepared teeth through porcine gingiva (P4), however with less accuracy of fit than that of conventional optical scanners without coverage of the finish lines. Where no gingiva was available (P1-P3), the ultrasound accuracy of fit was similar to that of at least one optical scanner (Lava COS).