Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression" and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.

Fracture load of metal-ceramic, monolithic, and bi-layered zirconia-based posterior fixed dental prostheses after thermo-mechanical cycling.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the fracture load of differently fabricated 3-unit posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with an intermediate pontic. METHODS: Fifty sets of two stainless-steel abutments were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 10 each) depending on the material and technique used for manufacturing the FDPs: (1) Metal-ceramic (MC, control); (2) Lava Zirconia (LZ, bi-layered); (3) Lava Plus (LM, monolithic); (4) VITA In-Ceram YZ (YZ, bi-layered); and (5) IPS e-max ZirCAD (ZZ, bi-layered). After being luted to the dies, all FDPs were submitted to thermo-mechanical cycling (120,000 masticatory cycles, 50 N; plus 774 thermal cycles of 5 °C/55 °C, dwell time: 30 s). Samples were then subjected to a three-point bending test until fracture in a universal testing machine (cross-head speed: 1 mm/min). Fracture load of the veneering ceramic (VF) and total fracture load (TF) were recorded. Microstructure and failure patterns were assessed. Data was analysed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: MC restorations recorded higher VF and TF values than did zirconia FDPs (p = 0.0001), which showed no between-group differences. Within the bi-layered groups, TF was significantly higher than VF. LM pieces registered lower average grain size than did LZ specimens (p = 0.001). Overall, the connector was the weakest part. CONCLUSIONS: All of the groups tested could withstand clinical chewing forces in terms of average fracture load. Zirconia-based samples performed similarly to each other, but showed lower mean fracture load values than did metal-ceramic ones. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Monolithic zirconia may be recommendable for solving the chipping problem.

Combined Stereophotogrammetry and Laser-Sintered, Computer-Aided Milling Framework for an Implant-Supported Mandibular Prosthesis: A Case History Report.

PURPOSE: This study compared the marginal gaps of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM)-fabricated all-ceramic crowns constructed from scanned impressions and models and with two different occlusal reduction designs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two typodont mandibular first molars were prepared to receive CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Both molars were prepared to ideal crown reduction, the first with anatomical occlusal reduction (AOR) and the second with completely flat occlusal reduction (FOR). Nine polyvinyl siloxane impressions (PVS) were taken, and nine stone replicas fabricated for each preparation. All impressions and stone models were scanned using a laser scanner (Planmeca Planscan, E4D technologies), and 36 lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) crowns were milled. The marginal gap was measured in four locations using a light stereomicroscope. RESULTS: Crowns constructed from preparations with both occlusal reduction designs demonstrated similar marginal gaps (FOR = 97.98; AOR = 89.12; P = .739). However, all crowns constructed from scanned impressions presented significantly larger marginal gaps than the crowns fabricated from scanned models (impressions = 109.26; models = 77.84; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Scanning stone models produced all-ceramic crowns with significantly smaller marginal gaps than scanning impressions, irrespective of the occlusal reduction design.