From the currently available choices, esthetic restorative materials for posterior teeth are limited to composite and ceramic restoration. Ceramic inlays/onlays are reliable solutions for both of these treatments. For successful treatment planning, usable ceramic and adhesive systems should be chosen by the dentist. Since the Federal Drug Administration approval of the erbium: Yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) laser-for caries removal, cavity preparation and the conditioning of tooth substance-in 1997, there have been many reports on the use of this technique in combination with composite resins. In addition, cavity pretreatment with the Er:YAG laser (laser etching) has been proposed as an alternative to acid etching of enamel and dentin. This case report presents the use of the Er:YAG in cavity preparation for composite resin restoration and surface treatment for ceramic onlay restoration of adjacent permanent molars.

Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatments on the shear bond strength of resin cements to zirconia. Material and methods: Sintered zirconia specimens (n = 192) were divided into four different surface treatment groups: control (no treatment); airborne-particle abrasion; glaze layer and hydrofluoric acid (HF) application, and hot etching solution application. Then, each group was divided into four subgroups (n = 12), and three different resin cements were applied to the zirconia surfaces. The shear bond strength value of each specimen was measured after 5000 thermo cycles. The failure types were examined with a stereomicroscope and the effects of the surface treatments were evaluated with a scanning electron microscope. Results were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Results: The surface treatment and resin cement type significantly affected the bond strength results (p < 0.05). For all resin cements, the airborne-particle abrasion treatment increased the shear bond strength values (p < 0.05). The glaze layer & HF application increased shear bond strength values for all groups, except the Single Bond Universal-RelyX Unicem Aplicap group (p < 0.05). The surface roughness values of airborne-particle abraded specimens were similar to comparable values for specimens from the control group and the hot etching solution group (p > 0.05). The glaze layer & HF application group produced the highest surface roughness values (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study recommend using the appropriate combination of surface treatment and adhesive/silane coupling agent to achieve durable zirconia-resin bonding.

Aim: This study evaluates the digital accuracy of posterior implant scans and contralateral molar tooth scans obtained with three different intraoral scanners. Materials and Methods: Using a transfer analog, a Frasaco maxillary model was prepared with a Megagen scan body positioned in the left maxillary molar region. An experienced operator (n = 10) performed all scans with an industrial optical reference scanner and intraoral scanners (Medit i700, TRIOS 3, and TRIOS 5). Scan accuracy was assessed using Geomagic Control X software based on 3D trueness and precision accuracy analysis. One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD tests were applied to identify statistically significant differences in trueness and precision (α = 0.05). Results: In the implant region, TRIOS 5 demonstrated significantly different 3D trueness results and was more successful than TRIOS 3. Medit i700 yielded results comparable to those of TRIOS 3 and TRIOS 5 (p = 0.011). TRIOS 5 exhibited less successful 3D trueness results than the other scanners in the molar region (p = 0.001). No 3D precision differences were observed among intraoral scanners in the implant region (p = 0.561). Medit i700 presented the most favorable precision results in the molar region (p = 0.01). Conclusions: TRIOS 5 supports high impression accuracy and passive fit, while Medit i700 offers more reliable accuracy for contralateral molar scans, which can affect the digital occlusal record.

Objectives: This study evaluated the satisfaction of the patients using the oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14) and VAS scale after 5-8 years of the treatment. Materials and Methods: A total of healthy 185 implants were selected according to the dental implant health scale accepted by International Congress of Oral Implantologists Consensus (ICOI) and 112 fixed implant- supported prosthesis evaluated for this study. The patient-reported effect was prospectively obtained by measuring oral health impact (OHIP-14) and VAS skale with a a follow-up period ranging from 5 to 8 years. Distribution of variables was checked using 0ne-Sample test. SPSS 22.0 programme was used for the analyses. Results: The patients were defined high satisfaction results after 5-8 years by implant placement. Mean VAS-score for the satisfaction percentage with implant-supported restorations was 87.80 % (SD ± 13.79). Mean OHIP score was 2.82 (SD ± 5.44). The results of OHIP 14 and VAS scores resulted that patient satisfaction with fixed implant supported prosthesis was high in all patients. Conclusions: The fixed implant-supported restorations served high satisfaction results according to the OHIP 14 and VAS results. These restorations has a positive effect to the quality of life for oral health (OHRQoL). Key Words: Quality of life; dental implant; denture ; partial; fixed

Objectives: Assessing the satisfaction of edentulous patients treated with implant-supported fixed or removable prosthetic dentures, as opposed to various other prosthetic designs, is crucial for comprehending their perceptions and attitudes towards the effectiveness of different implant treatment options. Materials and methods: The study evaluated 38 participants over 5 years (± 0.5 years) using 226 implants supported by either removable or fixed prostheses between February 1, 2023, and May 25, 2023 face to face. Each participant had at least 5 years (± 0.5 years) of experience with their dentures. The participants were evenly divided into three groups based on the type of dental prosthetic design. Group 1 consisted of 13 participants with a mandibular two-implant retained overdenture opposing a maxillary complete denture. Group 2 included 13 participants with maxillary and mandibular four-implant-retained fixed full-arch dentures. Group 3 comprised 12 participants with a mandibular and maxillary four-implant-retained overdenture retained by a bar attachment system. All patients were recalled to the clinic and asked to complete the OHIP-14 questionnaire and the VAS scale. Assessments were conducted 5 years (± 0.5 years) post-implant loading. Data comparison between the groups was conducted using Kruskal-Wallis tests, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The study included 38 participants, with an average age of 62.11 ± 6.78 years. All patients showed high satisfaction with implant-supported prosthetic restorations five years (± 0.5 years) after implant loading. The average Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14) score was 8.79 (SD ± 11.26), and the mean Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores stood at 88.57% for the cohort. Ohıp-14 data comparison across the groups, conducted using Kruskal-Wallis tests, showed no significant statistical difference in the quality-of-life measures. The VAS analysis revealed no significant difference among the groups (p > 0.05) in all comparisons at the 5% significance level, except for the phonetics variable (p=0.034). Conclusions: This clinical investigation demonstrates that edentulous patients, whether treated with removable or fixed implant-supported prostheses, show consistent satisfaction with their dentures as measured by OHIP-14 results.