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.

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.

(1) Background: The objective of this in vitro study is to evaluate the marginal accuracy of crowns created by CAD/CAM. (2) Methods: A customized chrome-cobalt (Cr-Co) implant abutment simulating a maxillary right first molar was fixed in a hemi-maxillary stone model and scanned. In total, 27 crowns were fabricated, including 9 lithium disilicate crowns, 9 composite crowns, and 9 zirconia crowns. The measurements were determined by scanning electron microscopy. Descriptive analysis was performed using the mean and standard deviation, while the Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to determine whether the marginal discrepancies were significantly different between each group (p < 0.05). (3) Results: The lowest marginal gap value was reported for zirconia (21.45 ± 12.58 µm), followed by composite (44.7 ± 24.96 µm) and lithium disilicate (62.28 ± 51.8 µm). The Kruskal–Wallis tests revealed a statistically significant difference (p-value < 0.05) in the mean marginal gaps between different materials. (4) Conclusions: The proposed digital workflow can be a viable alternative for fixed prosthetic rehabilitations. The best performance in terms of marginal gap was achieved by zirconia crowns, but all three materials demonstrate marginal closure below the clinically accepted threshold value (120 µm). Clinical significance: although significant differences were reported, the investigated CAD/CAM materials showed clinically acceptable marginal gaps.

The present study was conducted to investigate whether a different implant neck design could affect survival rate and peri-implant tissue health in a cohort of disease-free partially edentulous patients in the molar–premolar region. The investigation was conducted on 122 dental implants inserted in 97 patients divided into two groups: Group A (rough wide-neck implants) vs. Group B (rough reduced-neck implants). All patients were monitored through clinical and radiological checkups. Survival rate, probing depth, and marginal bone loss were assessed at 12- and 24-month follow-ups. Patients assigned to Group A received 59 implants, while patients assigned to Group B 63. Dental implants were placed by following a delayed loading protocol, and cemented metal–ceramic crowns were delivered to the patients. The survival rates for both Group A and B were acceptable and similar at the two-year follow-up (96.61% vs. 95.82%). Probing depth and marginal bone loss tended to increase over time (follow-up: t₁ = 12 vs. t₂ = 24 months) in both groups of patients. Probing depth (p = 0.015) and bone loss (p = 0.001) were significantly lower in Group A (3.01 vs. 3.23 mm and 0.92 vs. 1.06 mm; Group A vs. Group B). Within the limitations of the present study, patients with rough wide-neck implants showed less marginal bone loss and minor probing depth, as compared to rough reduced-neck implants placed in the molar–premolar region. These results might be further replicated through longer-term trials, as well as comparisons between more collar configurations (e.g., straight vs. reduced vs. wide collars).

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare two different techniques for the treatment of plaque-induced gingivitis, demonstrating whether the causal therapy supported by diode laser can allow a resolution of the edema caused by gingivitis in less time compared to the single traditional causal therapy. Materials and methods: Twenty-five patients between 20 and 60 years of age with a specific diagnosis of gingivitis were evaluated at the CLID-HSR oral hygiene department. Once the clinical parameters (bleeding index, plaque index, recession, and clinical attack level) were recorded, each of them was subjected to a professional oral hygiene session and instructed in correct home hygiene procedures. Through a split-mouth protocol for each individual patient, hemi-arches were treated by simple randomization to be treated with causal therapy supported by the action of the diode laser (experimental therapy) and which with traditional causal therapy (control therapy). A first intraoral scan was performed before therapy (T0), which was repeated 20 min after rinsing with CHX. The intraoral scans were repeated at a control 7 (T1) and 14 days (T2) after the session. For each intraoral scan, a volumetric value was calculated, proportional to the edema of the gingival tissues, using special digital software. The operator who carried out the volumetric measurements on the software was not aware of the therapy implemented on each half-arch. The operator who carried out the statistical analysis was not aware of the therapy applied to each group. The collected data were statistically compared in order to detect any differences between the volumetric variations between the two therapy groups and within the therapy groups over time. After evaluating the distribution of data by means of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov statistical test, the appropriate nonparametric tests were chosen to carry out the statistical comparisons. Results: Based on the analysis of the gingival-periodontal health parameters and the volumetric value of the treated areas, no statistically significant differences were detected between the areas treated with the adjuvant action of the diode laser compared to those treated with causal therapy alone. Conclusions: With the limitations of this study, in accordance with the statistical results obtained, diode laser therapy does not allow a faster resolution of gingival edema compared to traditional therapy; the two treatment techniques for plaque-induced gingivitis, therefore, have the same efficacy.

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the immediate-loading protocol, in single restorations in the esthetic zone, by comparing the digital workflow in a test group (TG) vs. the analogical workflow in a control group (CG). A total of 50 patients were enrolled, requiring single hopeless tooth extraction. Twenty-five patients (TG) were randomly assigned to the immediate-loading protocol using the digital workflow, and twenty-five patients (CG) were assigned to the conventional workflow. Clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated at the time of implant insertion (baseline) and after 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. A clinician blind to conditions measured the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), as well as patient satisfaction. At 12-month follow-up, a cumulative survival rate of 100% was reported for all implants. No failures or biological complications were observed. No statistically significant differences were detected in the mean values of marginal bone loss and PES between the TG (0.12 ± 0.66 mm for MBL, 7.75 ± 0.89 for PES) and the CG (0.15 ± 0.54 mm for MBL, 7.50 ± 0.89 for PES). In 11 cases of TG, and 10 cases of CG, a one-year follow-up period showed an increased marginal bone level. No statistically significant differences were found in the mean total PES between test (7.75 ± 0.89) and control (7.5 ± 0.81) conditions. Furthermore, a customer satisfaction survey showed that patients preferred the digital workflow over the conventional workflow procedure (97.6 ± 4.3 vs. 69.2 ± 13.8). Digital workflow was more time-efficient than conventional workflow (97.2 ± 7.3 vs. 81.2 ± 11.3). Within the limitations of this study, no statistically significant differences were found between digital and traditional workflow.