Background: The objective of this study was to compare conventional versus digital impressions for Full-Arch maxillary rehabilitations. Methods: Patients selected for this study were treated with full-arch screw-retained rehabilitations supported by six immediately loaded dental implants. Patients have been scheduled randomly into control (conventional impression group, CIG) and test (digital impression group, DIG) groups respectively for a fully conventional workflow and a fully digital workflow. In both groups, within 24 h, temporary prostheses were delivered. Four months after the implant positioning, the two groups dealt with the fabrication of definitive restorations: conventional pick-up was performed in the control group, and definitive digital impressions were carried out in the test group. The time involved following these two procedures was recorded. Patients underwent intraoral digital radiographs to evaluate the accuracy of the framework-implant connection, check for the presence of voids at the bar-implant connection and measure bone level. Criteria used to assess success at the prosthetic level were the occurrence of prosthetic maintenance, the absence of fractures of the acrylic resin superstructure and voids. Results: A total of 50 patients received immediately loaded prostheses supported by six implants (total 300 implants). A fixture and prosthetic survival rate of 100% was observed. All digital X-ray examinations revealed a bar-implant connection accuracy and no voids. Differences that were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) in marginal bone loss were found between control and test groups. Significantly less time was spent to perform digital impression procedure (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Clinical and radiological results of the test group advocate a satisfactory accuracy and predictability of the intraoral scanner (IOS) to be a reliable alternative in clinical practice for implant full-arch rehabilitations and suggest fabrication of definitive restorations with a successful marginal fit precision.

Enrico Gherlone, MD, DMD, PhD/Paolo Capparé, MD, MS/Raffale Vinci, MD, DMD, MS/Francesco Ferrini, DDS/Giorgio Gastaldi, MD, DMD/Roberto Crespi, MD, MS: Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the most accurate impression technique for ?All on Four? restoration, comparing conventional (CIG) and digital impressions (DIG). Materials and Methods: Patients randomly selected for this study were required to be edentulous in at least one arch, presenting with severe posterior mandibular or maxillary atrophy. All patients underwent full-arch immediate-load rehabilitations, which were fixed to a total of four implants (two axial and two tilted). Following implant placement, patients were stratified into two groups. Conventional pick-up was carried out in the control group, and digital impressions were performed in the test group. Following prosthetic rehabilitation, patients underwent intraoral digital radiographs to check for the presence of voids at the bar?implant connection and to evaluate accuracy. Three-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up examinations were performed. Results: A total of 25 patients received immediately loaded ?All-on-Four? prostheses (17 maxillary, 13 mandibular) supported by four implants (total 120 implants), of which five received both maxillary and mandibular prosthetic rehabilitation (three patients in CIG, two patients in DIG). No implant dropouts occurred, showing a survival rate of 100%. The digital impression procedure required significantly less time than the conventional procedure (P < .001). Conclusion: Results demonstrate that it is possible to develop computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) cobalt-chromium full-arch rehabilitations with satisfactory accuracy using digital impression techniques.

Background: The aim of this clinical study was to compare the results of non‐surgical treatment of periodontal disease with an erbium‐doped:yttrium, aluminum, and garnet (Er:YAG) laser to root debridement with an ultrasonic scaler.Methods: Twenty‐five patients furnished two quadrants containing four teeth with probing depths (PD) >4 mm; the quadrants were divided equally between the right and left sides. On one side, teeth were treated by Er:YAG laser using 160 mJ/pulse at 10 Hz (test group); on the contralateral side, teeth were treated by ultrasonic scaler (control group). Clinical baseline data, including plaque index, gingival index, probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL), were recorded before treatment and at 3 months and 1 and 2 years.Results: There were statistically significant differences in PD between the test and control groups for pockets of 1 to 4 mm (P <0.05), 5 to 6 mm (P <0.01), and ≥7 mm (P <0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the test and control groups for CAL gain in pockets of 1 to 4 mm; statistically significant differences were found between the test and control groups in pockets of 5 to 6 mm (P <0.01) and ≥7 mm (P <0.001).Conclusion: Er:YAG laser periodontal treatment resulted in statistically significant improvements in PD and CAL gain compared to ultrasonic scaler treatment at 2‐year follow‐up, especially in moderate and deep pockets.

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the quality of digital workflows generated by different scanners (Intra-oral digital scanners (I.O.S.s)) focusing on marginal fit analysis. A customized chrome-cobalt (Cr-Co) implant abutment simulating a maxillary right first molar was fixed in hemi-maxillary stone model and scanned by eight different I.O.S.s: Omnicam^® (Denstply Sirona, Verona, Italy) CS3500^®, CS3600^®, (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, GA, USA), True Definition Scanner^® (3M, St. Paul, MN, USA), DWIO^® (Dental Wings, Montreal, Quebec, Canada), PlanScan^® (Planmeca Oy, Helsinki, Finland), 3D PROGRESS Plus^® (MHT, Verona, Italy), TRIOS 3^® (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Nine scans were performed by each tested I.O.S. and 72 copings were designed using a dental computer-assisted-design/computer-assisted-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software (exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany). According to CAD data, zirconium dioxide (ZrO₂) copings were digitally milled (Roland DWX-50, Irvine, CA, USA). Scanning electron microscope (SEM) direct vision allowed for marginal gap measurements in eight points for each specimen. Descriptive analysis was performed using mean, standard deviation, and median, while the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to determine whether the marginal discrepancies were significantly different between each group (significance level p < 0.05). The overall mean marginal gap value and standard deviation were 53.45 ± 30.52 μm. The minimum mean value (40.04 ± 18.90 μm) was recorded by PlanScan^®, then 3D PROGRESS Plus^® (40.20 ± 21.91 μm), True Definition Scanner^® (40.82 ± 26.19 μm), CS3500^® (54.82 ± 28.86 μm) CS3600^® (59,67 ± 28.72 μm), Omnicam^® (61.57 ± 38.59 μm), DWIO^® (62.49 ± 31.54 μm), while the maximum mean value (67.95 ± 30.41 μm) was recorded by TRIOS 3^®. The Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.5) in the mean marginal gaps between copings produced by 3D PROGRESS Plus^®, PlanScan, True Definition Scanner, and the other evaluated I.O.S.s. The use of an I.O.S. for digital impressions may be a viable alternative to analog techniques. Although in this in vitro study PlanScan^®, 3D PROGRESS Plus^® and True Definition Scanner^® may have showed the best performances, all I.O.S.s tested could provide clinically encouraging results especially in terms of marginal accuracy, since mean marginal gap values were all within the clinically acceptable threshold of 120 μm.

Background: Aesthetic porcelain veneers proved to be a long-term reliable prosthetic solution, ensuring minimal invasiveness. The use of veneers requires an adhesive cementation technique, so maintaining as much enamel as possible is to ensure lasting success. A diagnostic mock-up is a key tool that allows a preview of the outcome of the aesthetic restoration: it is obtainable both in an analog and digital way. With the recent developments in impression technology and the ever so fast growing use of CAD-CAM technologies it is useful to understand the pros and cons of either one of these techniques (analog and digital) in order to identify the easier and more convenient workflow in aesthetic dentistry.Methods: After taking pictures and impressions of the dental arcs of a patient in need of aesthetic rehabilitation, 52 resin models were produced and a digital drawing of the smile was outlined. Both an analog and a digital wax-up were obtained from two of the 52 models: the latter was obtained using digital impressions and a dedicated software. The analog wax-up was then used to produce 25 matrices that have later been used to mould 25 resin mock-ups using a traditional moulding protocol (Control Group - CG). The digital wax-up was used to mill 25 PMMA mock-ups. Each mock-up, both milled and moulded (total 50), was then laid on the other 50 resin models as a digital impression of it was taken. The STL. files of the milled mock-ups were compared with the 3D CAD wax-up made using a specific software. The STL. files of the analog printed mock-ups were compared with the traditional wax-up design. A statistical analysis was carried out to evaluate the difference between the groups.Results: The statistical analysis showed a significant difference (P > 0.01) between the mean value of the distance between the points of the overlapping STL. meshes in GC (0.0468 mm) and in TG (Test Group - TG) (0,0109 mm).Conclusions: The study showed a difference in accuracy between traditional moulded and milled mock-ups compared to their original wax-up. The data analysis reports that the digital method allows for greater accuracy. Within the limitations of this study, a fully digital workflow is to considered more reliable when it come to creating an esthetic mockup: the digital procedure has been shown to be more accurate than the one made manually which is much more operator dependent and it brings an increase to the chance of error, and that could ultimately affect the final result.

Background: Reduction of alveolar height and width after tooth extraction may present problems for implant placement, especially in the anterior maxilla where bone volume is important for biologic and esthetic reasons. Different graft materials have been proposed to minimize the reduction in ridge volume. The aim of this study was to compare radiographic and histomorphometric results of magnesium‐enriched hydroxyapatite (MHA) and calcium sulfate (CS) grafts in fresh sockets after tooth extractions.Methods: Forty‐five fresh extraction sockets with three bone walls were selected in 15 patients. A split‐mouth design was used: 15 sockets on the right side of the jaw received MHA, 15 sockets on the left side received CS, and 15 random unfilled sockets were considered the control (C) group. Intraoral digital radiographs were taken at baseline and at 3 months after graft material placement. At 3 months, cylinder bone samples were obtained for histology and histomorphometry analysis.Results: The difference in mean radiographic vertical bone level from baseline to 3 months was −2.48 ± 0.65 mm in the CS group, −0.48 ± 0.21 mm in the MHA group, and −3.75 ± 0.63 mm in the unfilled C group. Statistically significant differences (P <0.05) were found between CS and MHA groups and between MHA and C groups. Histologic examination revealed bone formation in all treated sites; trabecular bone assessment did not differ among apical, mesial, and coronal portions of the specimens. Mean vital bone measurements for CS, MHA, and C groups were 45.0% ± 6.5%, 40.0% ± 2.7%, and 32.8% ± 5.8%, respectively. Statistically significant differences (P <0.05) were found among all groups. Connective tissue percentages averaged 41.5% ± 6.7% for the CS group, 41.3% ± 1.3% for the MHA group, and 64.6% ± 6.8% for the C group. Statistically significant differences (P <0.05) were found between CS and C groups and between MHA and C groups. The CS‐grafted sockets showed 13.9% ± 3.4% residual implant material, whereas the MHA‐treated sockets showed 20.2% ± 3.2% residual material. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (P <0.05).Conclusions: Radiographs revealed a greater reduction of alveolar ridge in the CS group than in the MHA group. Histologic examination showed more bone formation and faster resorption in the CS group and more residual implant material in the MHA group.