With continuing technological developments, there have been advances in the field of fixed prosthetics, particularly in impression-taking techniques. These technological advances mean that a wide variety of diagnostic and/or rehabilitation possibilities can be explored without the need for physical models. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three intraoral scanners used in oral implant rehabilitation using an extraoral scanner as a reference and varying the scanning area. Three models representing different clinical scenarios were scanned 15 times by each intraoral scanner and three times by the extraoral scanner. The readings were analyzed and overlaid using engineering software (Geomagic^® Control X software (Artec Europe, Luxembourg)). Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found between the three intraoral scanners, iTero^® (Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), Medit^® (Medit^®: Seoul, Korea), and Planmeca^® (Planmeca^®: Helsinki, Finland). In all clinical scenarios, the iTero^® scanner had the best trueness (24.4 μm), followed by the Medit^® (26.4 μm) and Planmeca^® (42.1 μm). The Medit^® showed the best precision (18.00 μm) followed by the iTero^® (19.20 μm) and Planmeca^® (34.30 μm). We concluded that the iTero^® scanner had the highest reproducibility and accuracy in the clinical setting.

Oral rehabilitation with dental implants has resulted in high success rates. However, some complications have been described, such as the loss of the prosthetic screw. Some manufacturers sell screws with different coatings to avoid screw loosening, but even these types of screws can come loose. We aimed to investigate the screw coatings that can be applied during a dental appointment to avoid screw loosening. Following PRISMA Guidelines, we searched PubMed/Medline, Embase and Web of Science for studies published up to January 2024. All studies of single dental implant crowns, in which the prosthetic screw was coated with a lubricant and the preload and/or the removal torque value (RTV) was recorded, were analyzed. We excluded studies applying the finite element method (FEM) as well as studies without a control group. The risk of bias was assessed with a tool developed by our research group. Of the 1959 records identified, 19 were selected. Ten studies were considered to have a low risk of bias, and nine were considered to have a medium risk of bias. The coatings tested were adhesives, saliva, chlorhexidine, Vaseline, silicone gel, Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape, blood, fluoride, Listerine^® Mouthwash and normal saline. The preload, the RTV with and without cyclic loading and the percentage of RTV loss were recorded. Some coatings show promise, although there is no clear evidence that any option is superior in minimizing screw loosening.

(1) Introduction: Denture adhesives (DAs) promote stability, chewing ability, and quality of life. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of original brand DAs and white brands in their retention of conventional complete dentures. (2) Methods: This study followed the recommendations of the international standard ISO 10873. Three original brands of DA (Corega^® Fixação 3D, GlaxoSmithKline^®, Stafford Miller Ltd., Dungarvan Co. Waterford, Ireland), KuKident^® Pro Procter & Gamble Technical Centres^®, Ltd., Whitehal Lane, Germany and Elgydium^® Fix, Laboratórios URGO^® SL, Florida, Spain) were compared to three white brands (Fixação Extra Forte Pingo Doce^®, Laboratórios Cosmodent^®, Cantabria, Spain), Fixador de Próteses (Continente^®, Propack^®,Gmbh, Ladenburg, Germany) and Creme Fixador de Próteses (Auchan^®, Ellipse^®, Roubaix, France). Their retention capacities were analyzed using a mechanical test device. (3) Results: The mean retentive ability of original brand adhesives (M = 11.16, SD = 5.27) was significantly higher (t(298) = 11.88; p < 0.001) than that of the white brands (M = 5.92, SD = 1.18). When comparing all brands, statistically significant differences were also observed, F(5.294) = 707.68 (p < 0.001). The generic adhesive results were more homogeneous. The generic brands from Continente^® (M = 5.24, SD = 0.94) and Auchan^® (M = 5.80, SD = 0.79) were not significantly different, while the Pingo Doce^® brand obtained significantly higher mean retention results (M = 6.71, SD = 1.28). (4) Conclusions: The original brands of DA have a significantly higher retentive ability than the white brands. Elygidim^® Fix had the worst result of the three original brands, and the product from Pingo Doce^® had the best result among the three white brands.

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of two coating materials, a silicone sealing gel and a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) tape, on the screw preload and removal torque value (RTV) to develop strategies to prevent prosthetic screw loosening. We examined 45 complexes comprising an implant, abutment, and prosthetic screw, of which 15 samples were uncoated, 15 were coated with GapSeal^® (Hager & Werken GmbH & Co., Duisburg, Germany), and 15 were coated with PTFE tape (MIARCO^®, Valencia, Spain). The screws were tightened to register the preload and then untightened to register the RTV. The preload values showed a statistically significant difference only in the PTFE group, suggesting that this lubricant negatively affects the preload. The RTVs showed statistically significant differences among all groups, with the GapSeal^® group and PTFE group showing the highest and lowest values, respectively. It can be concluded that the application of the PTFE tape on the screw significantly reduced the preload and RTV. The silicone sealing gel did not affect the preload but increased the RTV. Therefore, the use of GapSeal^® should be considered to prevent prosthetic screw loosening, while the use of PTFE tape should be avoided.

Implant-supported provisional restorations are critical for improving the esthetics and shaping of the peri-implant tissue. The mechanical properties of these provisional materials can be influenced by saliva, food, beverages, and interactions between these materials in the oral environment. Therefore, the integrity of provisional restorations should be preserved throughout the treatment period. This study aimed to evaluate the fracture strength of implant-supported polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) provisional restorations made of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing when immersed in different solutions at a controlled temperature of 37 °C for 7 days. Each analog-pillar-crown set was submerged in different liquids: 10 pieces were placed in distilled water then in tea, coffee, red wine, and Coca Cola^® for 1 week at a controlled oral temperature of 37 °C. The samples were then subjected to fracture forces. The moment of fracture of the crown was recorded and compared with those of the other samples. Specimens immersed in distilled water (control group) had the highest fracture resistance (mean [M] = 1331.00 ± 296.74 N), while those immersed in tea had the lowest mean resistance to fracture (mean [M] = 967.00 ± 281.86 N). Nutritional deficiency and inappropriate eating habits influence the fracture strength of temporary crowns, thereby rendering them more elastic or less resistant to fractures.

Orthodontic Mini-Implants have a high success rate, but it is crucial to assess the load that they bear in order to maintain their primary stability. Increasing the diameter can improve this stability, but there are limitations due to the proximity of the tooth roots. To avoid damage, smaller diameters are used, which can decrease resistance and cause permanent deformations. Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the influence of the diameter of Mini-Implants through bending force tests, taking into account primary stability after one and two insertions. Methods: Here, 40 Ti6AI4V alloy Mini-Implants of two different brands and diameters were divided into eight groups, half of which received one insertion in the artificial bone, and the rest received two. All were subjected to a constant bending force using an INSTRON-Electropuls E10000LT (Norwood, MA, USA) until fracture. Results: The smaller-diameter Mini-Implants were less resistant to fracture, but both were able to withstand the necessary loads produced by orthodontic movements. As for the inserts, there were no statistically significant differences. Conclusions: There is an advantage to using 1.6 mm Mini-Implants over 2.0 mm ones, as a smaller diameter does not lead to fracture due to the forces used in orthodontic treatment. Having one or two inserts did not have a statistically significant effect.