A randomized controlled clinical trial on press and block lithium disilicate partial crowns: A 4-year recall.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical performances of two lithium disilicate systems (Initial LiSi press vs Initial LiSi Block, GC Co.) using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates after 4 years of clinical service. METHODS: Partial adhesive crowns on natural abutment posterior teeth were made on 60 subjects who were randomly divided into two groups: Group 1: Initial LiSi press and Group 2: Initial LiSi Block. Fabrication of partial crowns was made with full analog and digital procedure in Groups 1 and 2 respectively. The restorations were followed-up for 1 and 4 years, and the modified USPHS evaluation was performed at baseline and each recall together with periodontal evaluation. Contingency tables to assess for significant differences of success over time in each group and time-dependent Cox regression to test for differences between the two groups were used and the level of significance was set at P< 0.05. RESULTS: Regarding modified USPHS scores, all evaluated parameters showed Alpha or Bravo and no Charlie was recorded. No statistically significant difference emerged between the two groups in any of the assessed variables (P> 0.05). No statistically significant difference between scores recorded at the baseline and each recall. All modified USPHS scores were compatible with the outcome of clinical success and no one restoration was replaced or repaired, and the survival rate was 100% after 4 years of clinical service. No difference was found between traditional and digital procedure to fabricate the crowns. The two lithium disilicate materials showed similar results after 4 years of clinical service. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The crowns made with the two tested lithium disilicate materials with analog and digital procedures showed 100% survival after 4 years of clinical service with no statistically significant difference using the modified USPHS scores.

Accuracy of Four Intra-Oral Scanners in Subgingival Vertical Preparation: An In Vitro 3-Dimensional Comparative Analysis.

One of the most critical aspects in intraoral impression is the detection of the finish line, particularly in the case of subgingival preparations. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy among four different Intra Oral Scanners (IOSs) in scanning a subgingival vertical margins preparation (VP). A reference maxillary typodont (MT) was fabricated with a VP for full crown on #16 and #21. The MT was scanned with a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Tokyo, Japan) to obtain a digital MT (dMT) in .stl format file. A group of 40 digital casts (dIOC) were obtained by scanning the MT 10 times with four different IOSs: Trios 3, 3Shape A/S; I700, Medit; Vivascan, Ivoclar; and Experimental IOS, GC. All the obtained dIOCs were imported into an inspection software program (Geomagic Control X; 3D SYSTEMS) to be superimposed to the dMT in order to calculate trueness. Therefore, in order to calculate precision, all the scans of the same scanner group were superimposed onto the cast that obtained the best result of trueness. The results were collected as the root mean square value (RMS) on the #16 and #21 abutment surfaces and on a marginal area positioned 1 mm above and below the gingival margin. A nonparametric analysis Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to compare the RMS values obtained in the different iOS groups for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at 0.05. For the trueness on the #16 abutment, the Vivascan reported statistically lower values, while on the #21 abutment, Vivascan (56.0 ± 12.1) and Experimental IOS, GC (59.2 ± 2.7) performed statistically better than the others. Regarding precision, Experimental IOS, GC were significantly better than the others on #16 (10.7 ± 2.1) and in the #21 area Experimental, GC, and Trios 3 performed statistically better(16.9 ± 13.8; 18.0 ± 2.7). At the subgingival marginal level for both #16 and #21, all the IOS reported reduced accuracy compared to clinical acceptance.

Flexural Strength Analysis of Different Complete Denture Resin-Based Materials Obtained by Conventional and Digital Manufacturing.

PMMA (Polymethylmethacrylate) is the material of choice to fabricate denture bases. Recently, with the introduction of CAD-CAM and 3D printers in dentistry, new materials have been proposed for complete denture manufacturing. AIM: This study compared the flexural strength of different resins fabricated using different technologies (conventional, CAD-CAM-milled, and 3D-printed) and polymerization techniques. METHODS: A total of 11 different resins were tested: six PMMA conventional (Acrypol R, Acrypol LL, Acrypol HI, Acrypol Fast, Acryself and Acryslef P), two milled obtained from UDMA PMMA disks (Ivotion disk and Aadva disk, control groups), two 3D-printed PMMA resins (NextDent Denture 3D+, and SprintRayEU Denture Base), and one 3D-printed composite resin (GC Temp Print). Flexural strength was measured using a universal testing machine. One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests were performed; the p-value was set at 0.05 to consider statistically significant differences among the groups. Spearman test was used to evaluate the correlation between polymerization technique and the flexural strength of 3D-printed resins. RESULTS: CAD-CAM-milled specimens showed the highest flexural strength (107.87 MPa for UDMA) followed by 3D-printed composite resins (102.96 MPa). Furthermore, 3D-printed resins polymerized for 40 min with the BB cure unit showed no statistically significant differences with conventional resin groups. Moreover, in all the 3D-printed specimens, a high correlation between polymerization technique and flexural strength was found. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of flexural strength, the polymerization technique is a determinant for both acrylic and composite resins. Temp Print can be a potential alternative to fabricating removable dentures and showed promising results when used in combination with pink color resin powder.

Comparison of physico-chemical properties of zinc oxide eugenol cement and a bioceramic sealer.

The aim of the present study was to compare the physico-chemical properties of EssenSeal with AH PLUS bioceramic and Pulp Canal Sealer EWT. Flow, solubility, film thickness, radiopacity and setting time were evaluated according to ISO 6876 (2012) specifications. External and cross-section surface characteristics were analysed under a scanning electron microscope. Statistical analysis was performed using Shapiro-Wilk's test, one-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test. All the sealers conformed to the ISO 6876 (2012) standards, except for the setting time for AH plus bioceramic, which exceeded more than 10% of the time indicated by the manufacturer. Statistically significant differences were found between the three study sealers regarding the physico-chemical properties tested (p < 0.05). EssenSeal demonstrated characteristics respecting the ISO 6876 (2012) standards and can be considered a predictable alternative in root canal sealing.