Despite the growing adoption of 3D-printed resin materials, limited evidence exists on how clinical procedures such as scaling impact their surface integrity. This in vitro study evaluated the effect of different scaling methods on the roughness of five 3D-printed resin materials. Disc-shaped specimens from five commercially available 3D-printed crown materials (Crowntec, Varseosmile, Freeprint, Ezprint, and C&B Nextdent) were fabricated. Each material group (N = 30) was subjected to three scaling techniques: stainless-steel manual, plastic, and piezoelectric ultra-sonic scalers. Surface roughness (Ra) was quantified using a non-contact profilometer before and after scaling. One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the data. All the crowns exhibited increased roughness when treated with ultra-sonic scalers compared to the other scalers, and this was significant (p < 0.05) for all except VarseoSmile. Compared to the other crowns, Freeprint crowns (0.07 ± 0.04 µm) showed the greatest roughness change with plastic scalers, which was significant (p < 0.05) compared to C&B Nextdent crowns (0.001 ± 0.03 µm). For hand and ultra-sonic scalers, no significant differences were found among the crown types (p > 0.05). In conclusion, ultra-sonic scalers, while efficient, may increase surface roughness, potentially enhance plaque retention, and compromise prosthesis longevity.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the level of knowledge and attitude about the etiology, diagnosis, and management of peri-implantitis among dental practitioners. Methods: An online cross-sectional study on 303 dentists in Saudi Arabia was conducted. A closed-ended survey consisting of 28 questions was designed. Three sections were created, i.e., (1) participants’ characteristics; (2) knowledge of peri-implantitis etiology, risk factors, diagnosis, and complications; and (3) the use of antibiotics to manage peri-implantitis and methods used for diagnosis and treatment. The data were analyzed using mean and percentages. Results: A total of 303 dentists participated in this study with a 78.8% response rate, comprising 80% general dentists and 20% specialists. The majority of dentists demonstrated knowledge about peri-implantitis, with 85.5% identifying bacterial plaque as an etiologic factor and 83.8% recognizing it as an inflammatory reaction. Regarding risk factors, 88.1% identified smoking and 86.1% recognized periodontitis as contributors to peri-implant disease development. In terms of clinical decision making, 63% of participants considered implant mobility as a definitive indication for implant removal, and more than half reported using crater-like bone defects surrounding implants as a diagnostic criterion for peri-implantitis. For antimicrobial therapy, amoxicillin alone (30%) was the most commonly prescribed antibiotic, followed by the combination of amoxicillin with metronidazole (29%). Despite these treatment approaches, it is important to note that currently there are no established, predictable protocols for treating any phase of peri-implant disease. Conclusion: While participating dentists demonstrated a strong understanding of peri-implantitis etiology and risk factors, particularly regarding bacterial plaque and smoking as major contributors, there was considerable variation in antibiotic selection and usage patterns. These findings suggest the need for standardized guidelines and further research to establish evidence-based protocols for managing peri-implant diseases.

Objectives: This in vitro study assessed the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different 3D-printed resin denture bases with 0°, 45°, and 90° printing orientations. Methods: Denture base was designed and fabricated using three 3D-printed denture base resins (DentaBASE, Denture 3D+, and FormLabs). Each resin was printed with its own printer and fabricated with different printing orientations, resulting in a total of 72 specimens (n = 8). Trueness and precision were evaluated before and after thermal aging using the superimposition method with best-fit alignment. The data were collected and analyzed using two-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey’s test (α = 0.05). Results: The printing orientation significantly affected the trueness of 3D-printed resins (p < 0.001). The highest trueness was observed for NextDent at 0° printing orientation, while the lowest value was observed for ASIGA at 0° and 45° printing orientations. The precision of the denture base was significantly affected by different printing orientations for ASIGA (p = 0.006) and NextDent (p < 0.001) before thermal cycling, while the precision of FormLabs was significantly affected (p = 0.017) after thermal cycling. The highest precision was recorded for FormLabs at 45° printing orientation, while the lowest precision was observed for NextDent at 45° and 90° printing orientations. Moreover, the effect of thermal cycling on trueness was only significant for ASIGA at 0° printing orientation; however, the effect of thermal cycling on precision was significant for NextDent at 0° and 90° printing orientations. A 45° printing orientation provided the most accurate clinical fit. Conclusions: ASIGA showed the lowest trueness, while FormLabs exhibited the lowest precision, revealing performance differences between printers.