Effect of cross-polarization filters on the trueness of colors obtained with a single-lens reflex camera, macro lens, and a ring flash.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of cross-polarization filters on the colors of shade tabs obtained with a digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera, macrolens, and a ring flash. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Digital images of four shade tables (1M1, 3L2.5, 3R2.5, and 5M3) from the VITA Toothguide 3D-Master shade guide were taken using a DSLR camera, 100 mm macrolens, and ring flash with two different cross-polarizing filters (Polar_eyes and Filtropolar), and without (Nonpolarizer; n = 7). The CIE L*a*b* color coordinates of digital images were calculated and remeasured with a spectroradiometer (SR). The color differences (ΔE00 ) between the SR and digital images were calculated and analyzed with the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: ΔE00 values of all test groups were higher than the clinically acceptable threshold (∆E00 > 1.80). While the ∆E00 values of Filtropolar (6.19 ± 0.44) and Polar_eyes (7.82 ± 0.23) groups were significantly higher than the Nonpolarizer (4.69 ± 0.32) for the 1M1 shade tab, ∆E00 value of Polar_eyes (6.23 ± 0.34) was significantly lower than Nonpolarizer (10.71 ± 0.48) group for 5M3 shade tab (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The color-matching results of tested digital photography techniques with and without cross-polarization were unacceptable, compared to a spectroradiometer. While digital photography with Polar_eyes cross-polarizing filter has closer results to the reference device for the low-in-value shade table (5M3), for the high-in-value shade table (1M1), improved results were obtained without a cross-polarizing filter. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The cross-polarization filters are increasingly used in dentistry for tooth color communication with digital photography techniques. However, the digital photography techniques with-without cross-polarization filterers should be improved to obtain clinically acceptable color-matching results.

Effect of material type, torque value, and sterilization on linear displacements of a scan body: An in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited knowledge on the effect of scan body (SB) material type, torque value, and sterilization on linear displacements of implant SBs. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of material type, torque value, and sterilization on linear displacements of SBs during screw tightening by using digital image correlation (DIC) analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One polyetheretherketone (PEEK, Zfx Intraoral Scan Body) and one titanium SB (Ti, MPS Zimmer Scanbody R1410) were tightened with 5 Ncm torque on two implants (Zimmer TSV ⌀4.7 mm) by using a digital torque limiting device. SBs' initial spatial positions relative to the implants were recorded by using 3D DIC technique. Measurements were repeated after initially increasing torque value to 10 Ncm and then to 15 Ncm, and these steps were repeated for a total of 10 PEEK and 10 Ti SBs on both implants (n = 20). All SBs were then sterilized 25 times by using an autoclave (STATIM 5000 S G4) according to manufacturer's recommendations and all measurements were repeated. Linear displacements on three axes were calculated for each SB with increasing torque values (from 5 to 10 Ncm and from 10 to 15 Ncm) before and after sterilization. SB displacements within each torque value-sterilization pair were compared by using Mann-Whitney U test, whereas Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare SB displacements within each material-torque value pair between conditions and within each material-sterilization pair between torque values (α = 0.05). RESULTS: On x-axis, PEEK SBs had higher displacements than Ti SBs (p < 0.001), whereas sterilization (p ≤ 0.028) and 15 Ncm torque application (p ≤ 0.006) led to higher displacements of PEEK SBs. On y-axis, PEEK SBs had higher displacements than Ti SBs with 15 Ncm torque application (p ≤ 0.033). A total of 15 Ncm torque-applied PEEK SBs and 10 Ncm torque-applied Ti SBs had higher displacements after sterilization (p ≤ 0.028). Application of 15 Ncm torque led to higher displacements regardless of the material (p ≤ 0.002). On z-axis, PEEK SBs had higher displacements (p ≤ 0.015), except for 10 Ncm torque-applied sterilized SBs (p = 0.102). With 10 Ncm torque application, sterilization decreased the displacement values of PEEK SBs (p = 0.044). Greater displacements were observed with 10 Ncm torque-applied Ti SBs before sterilization and 15 Ncm torque-applied PEEK SBs after sterilization (p ≤ 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Axial displacement of SBs was affected by material type, torque value, and sterilization. Ti SBs mostly had lower displacements than PEEK SBs. Application of 15 Ncm torque to tested PEEK SBs should be refrained from and a calibrated tightening tool may enable the application of 10 Ncm or lower torque values for lower displacements. Sterilization generally increased PEEK SB displacements.

Management of a partially edentulous patient with idiopathic root resorption by using digital and conventional implant planning technologies.

This clinical report describes the rehabilitation of the maxillary arch of a partially edentulous patient with idiopathic root resorption, limited interarch distance, and a high smile line. Four implants were placed to provide a screw-retained fixed partial denture. The esthetic and functional challenges of a high smile line and limited interarch distance were addressed by using a combination of conventional and digital implant treatment technologies.

The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study.

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions and intraoral scans when a healing abutment-scanpeg system (HASP) or a conventional scanbody (CSB) was used on a single implant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary model with an implant (4.0 × 11 mm) (Neoss) and a CSB or an HASP (Neoss) was scanned by using a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600; Amann Girrbach) (reference scans) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 3) (n = 10). PVS open-tray impressions were also made and stone casts of the model with a CSB were digitized with the laboratory scanner. Intraoral scanner and cast scans were superimposed to their reference scans. On superimposed scans, points were selected on HASP and CSB to calculate distance deviations (at points 1-4) and angular deviations (at points 5 and 6 on CSB and PVS, and 5-8 on HASP) between scans (trueness), and their variation (precision). The deviation data was analyzed with ANOVA and pairwise comparisons (trueness) with Tukey's adjustment, and F-tests (precision). RESULTS: At point 1, PVS had lower trueness than CSB (difference in means (DIMs) = 0.184 mm, p = 0.006) and HASP (DIMs = 0.122 mm, p = 0.042). At point 3, CSB had higher trueness than HASP (DIMs = 0.134 mm, p = 0.001). Angular deviations with PVS were higher than with CSB (DIMs = 0.6°, p = 0.013) and HASP (DIMs = 0.7°, p = 0.005). CSB had higher precision than PVS (p < 0.05). HASP had higher precision than PVS for distance (Point 1)(p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p < 0.05). Deviation differences within the HASP parts were not significant. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of intraoral scans and PVS impressions of an implant was similar. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The combined healing abutment-scanpeg system and the conventional scanbody can be recommended for scans of anterior single implants with the intraoral scanner used.