A biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) for immediate posterior implant placement, immediate provisionalization, and definitive implant crown fabrication: A complete digital workflow.

OBJECTIVE: Immediate implants and immediate alveolar sealing have been a widely utilized treatment with high predictability and biological advantages. The improvement in technology has made it possible to simplify clinical processes. The aim of the present report was to describe the complete digital workflow of the Biologically oriented preparation technique for immediate posterior implant, immediate provisionalization and fabrication of definitive implant crowns. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The surgical process and prosthetic management to preserve the gingival contours of the extracted natural tooth during immediate implant placement and provisionalization are described. Additionally, during the same clinical intervention, the definitive intraoral digital implant scans for capturing the implant position, peri-implant tissue contours, adjacent and antagonist dentition, and profile emergence of the interim implant crown are captured for the fabrication of the definitive crown. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the technique described, the immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the posterior area provides biological and clinical advantages, reducing the number of abutment-implant disconnections and the number of clinical appointments, as well as increases patient comfort. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The present article describes a technique for an immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the posterior region for maintaining the gingival architecture of the extracted tooth. During the same appointment, the implant position, peri-implant tissue contours, and adjacent and antagonist dentition, and profile emergence of the interim implant crown are captured by using an intraoral scanner and used for the fabrication of the definitive crown. This technique aims to reduce the number of abutment-implant disconnections and clinical appointments.

Comparison of the Surface Roughness of CAD/CAM Metal-Free Materials Used for Complete-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study.

The roughness of the intra-oral surfaces significantly influences the initial adhesion and the retention of microorganisms. The aim of this study was to analyze the surface texture of four different CAD-CAM materials (two high-performance polymers and two fifth-generation zirconia) used for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses (CAISPs), and to investigate the effect of artificial aging on their roughness. A total of 40 milled prostheses were divided into 4 groups (n = 10) according to their framework material, bio.HPP (B), bio.HPP Plus (BP), zirconia Luxor Z Frame (ZF), and Luxor Z True Nature (ZM). The areal surface roughness "Sa" and the maximum height "Sz" of each specimen was measured on the same site after laboratory fabrication (lab as-received specimen) and after thermocycling (5-55 °C, 10,000 cycles) by using a noncontact optical profilometer. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28.0.1. One-way ANOVA with multiple comparison tests (p = 0.05) and repeated measures ANOVA were used. After thermocycling, all materials maintained "Sa" values at the laboratory as-received specimen level (p = 0.24). "Sz" increased only for the zirconia groups (p = 0.01). B-BP exhibited results equal/slightly better than ZM-ZF. This study provides more realistic surface texture values of new metal-free materials used in real anatomical CAISPs after the manufacturing and aging processes and establishes a detailed and reproducible measurement workflow.

Influence of the Use of Transepithelial Abutments vs. Titanium Base Abutments on Microgap Formation at the Dental Implant-Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study.

This in vitro study aimed to assess the presence of microgaps at the implant-abutment interface in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses on transepithelial abutments versus Ti-base abutments. METHODS: Sixty conical connection dental implants were divided into two groups (n = 30). The control group consisted of three-unit bridge monolithic zirconia connected to two implants by a transepithelial abutment. The test group consisted of monolithic zirconia three-unit restoration connected to two implants directly by a titanium base (Ti-base) abutment. The sample was subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles at 5 °C to 55 °C, dwelling time 50 s) and chewing simulation (300,000 cycles, under 200 N at frequencies of 2 Hz, at a 30° angle). The microgap was evaluated at six points (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual) of each implant-abutment interface by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U tests (p > 0.05). RESULTS: The SEM analysis showed a smaller microgap at the implant-abutment interface in the control group (0.270 µm) than in the test group (3.902 µm). Statistically significant differences were observed between both groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use or not of transepithelial abutments affects the microgap size. The transepithelial abutments group presented lower microgap values at the interface with the implant than the Ti-base group in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, both groups had microgap values within the clinically acceptable range.

Accuracy between 2D Photography and Dual-Structured Light 3D Facial Scanner for Facial Anthropometry: A Clinical Study.

(1) Background: Facial scanners are used in different fields of dentistry to digitalize the soft tissues of the patient's face. The development of technology has allowed the patient to have a 3-dimensional virtual representation, facilitating facial integration in the diagnosis and treatment plan. However, the accuracy of the facial scanner and the obtaining of better results with respect to the manual or two-dimensional (2D) method are questionable. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of the 3D method (a dual-structured light facial scanner) and compare it with the 2D method (photography) to obtain facial analysis in the maximum intercuspation position and smile position. (2) Methods: A total of 60 participants were included, and nine facial landmarks and five interlandmarks distances were determined by two independent calibrated operators for each participant. All measurements were made using three methods: the manual method (manual measurement), the 2D method (photography), and the 3D method (facial scanner). All clinical and lighting conditions, as well as the specific parameters of each method, were standardized and controlled. The facial interlandmark distances were made by using a digital caliper, a 2D software program (Adobe Photoshop, version 21.0.2), and a 3D software program (Meshlab, version 2020.12), respectively. The data were analyzed by SPSS statistical software. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that trueness and precision values were normally distributed (p > 0.05), so a Student's t-test was employed. (3) Results: Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.01) were observed in all interlandmark measurements in the 2D group (photography) to compare with the manual group. The 2D method obtained a mean accuracy value of 2.09 (±3.38) and 2.494 (±3.67) in maximum intercuspation and smile, respectively. On the other hand, the 3D method (facial scanner) obtained a mean accuracy value of 0.61 (±1.65) and 0.28 (±2.03) in maximum intercuspation and smile, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences with the manual method. (4) Conclusions: The employed technique demonstrated that it influences the accuracy of facial records. The 3D method reported acceptable accuracy values, while the 2D method showed discrepancies over the clinically acceptable limits.

Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4): occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05). RESULTS: Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans.

Conventional and digital complete-arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Varying complete-arch digital-implant-scanning techniques have been described, but their accuracy remains uncertain. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effect of the implant angulation and impression method (conventional, intraoral digital scan, intraoral scan with a splinting framework, and combining cone beam computed tomography [CBCT] and intraoral scan) on the accuracy of complete arch implant recording. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The following 2 casts were obtained: one with 4 parallel (P group) and the other with 4 angled (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group). Both the casts were digitized (7Series Scanner) (control file). The following 4 subgroups were created: conventional polyether impression with a splinted framework (CNV subgroup), intraoral scan (IOS subgroup), intraoral scan with a splinting framework (S-IOS subgroup), and intraoral scan combined with CBCT scan (CBCT-IOS subgroup) (n=10). For each file, an implant-supported bar was designed and imported into a program (Netfabb) to perform linear and angular interimplant abutment measurements. Two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and Tukey tests were selected to examine the data (α=.05). RESULTS: Implant angulation (P=.010) and impression method (P=.003) significantly influenced the linear trueness. The P group (112 µm) obtained better linear trueness than the NP group (144 µm). The CNV subgroup obtained the best linear trueness, while the IOS and CBCT-IOS showed the worst trueness. Group (P<.001) significantly influenced angular trueness. Group (P=.009) and subgroup (P<.001) influenced the linear precision. The P group (72 µm) obtained better linear precision than the NP group (91 µm). The IOS subgroup obtained the best linear precision. Group (P=.034) significantly influenced the angular precision. The P group (0.46 degrees) had higher angular precision compared with the NP group (0.60 degrees). CONCLUSIONS: Implant angulation and the impression methods tested, impacted the accuracy of the complete-arch implant recording. Parallel implants had better trueness and precision values than nonparallel implants. The conventional impression method showed the best trueness and precision. Among the digital implant scan methods assessed, the S-IOS and CBCT-IOS subgroups acquired significantly better trueness and precision than the IOS subgroup.

Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of ambient light illuminance on the accuracy and scanning time of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in complete-arch implant scans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven IOSs (TRIOS 3, Primescan, Element 5D, i700, i500, CS3700, and CS3600) at 5 ambient lighting illuminances (100, 500, 1000, 5000, and 10 000 lux) were evaluated. An edentulous cast with 4 implants was selected as the master model. An implant scan body was tightened on each implant. The cast was digitized by using a laboratory scanner to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file, and 50 scans (10 per ambient light condition) were recorded with each IOS. Scanning time was recorded by using a digital chronograph. Intraoral scan deviations were calculated by using a 3D metrology software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α=0.05). RESULTS: The trueness and precision values obtained for each IOS tested were significantly different under the varying lighting conditions assessed. TRIOS 3 (34.0 ± 3.3 µm trueness; 24.5 ± 14.9 µm precision), Element 5D (34.5 ± 7.1 µm trueness; 25.9 ± 7.6 µm precision), and CS3700 (34.9. ±13.0 µm trueness; 34.6 ± 19.2 µm precision) performed better under 100 lux illumination, CS3600 (69.5 ± 24.0 µm trueness; 36.6 ± 20.1 µm precision) at 500 lux; i500 (36.2 ± 5.1 µm trueness; 21.4 ± 6.8 µm precision) at 1000 lux; i700 (34.8 ± 2.2 µm trueness; 15.4 ± 5.0 µm precision) at 5000 lux, and Primescan (37.4 ± 37.3 µm trueness; 26.2 ± 26.2 µm precision) at 10,000 lux. Additionally, the scanning time was different under different illuminance for each IOS. The fastest IOS in all light conditions was Primescan, with significant differences with all the groups (P<.01), followed by TRIOS 3 in all groups except under 100 lux illumination, where i700 was the second fastest. CONCLUSIONS: Ambient light influenced the accuracy and scanning time of IOSs assessed; however, the effect was not the same for all devices. It is necessary to optimize ambient light illuminance for each IOS to maximize scanning accuracy.

Intraoral Digital Scans for Fabricating Tooth-Supported Prostheses Using a Custom Intraoral Scan Body.

This article describes a technique to assist with intraoral digital scans for fabricating tooth-supported prostheses by using a custom intraoral scan body when the extension of the scan or the clinical characteristics might compromise the reliability of the intraoral digital scan. A preliminary intraoral scan of the tooth preparations is used to design a custom intraoral scan body which is manufactured using polymethylmethacrylate and a 5-axis milling machine. A low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane impression of the tooth preparations is obtained using the custom intraoral scan body. Subsequently, the custom intraoral scan body is digitized using an intraoral scanner. A design software program is used to align the digitized custom intraoral scan body with the preliminary intraoral scan to obtain the definitive virtual cast. This technique aims to reduce manual conventional laboratory procedures such as pouring dental impression or die trimming which might minimize inaccuracies on the virtual definitive cast.