PMMA (Polymethylmethacrylate) is the material of choice to fabricate denture bases. Recently, with the introduction of CAD-CAM and 3D printers in dentistry, new materials have been proposed for complete denture manufacturing. Aim: This study compared the flexural strength of different resins fabricated using different technologies (conventional, CAD-CAM-milled, and 3D-printed) and polymerization techniques. Methods: A total of 11 different resins were tested: six PMMA conventional (Acrypol R, Acrypol LL, Acrypol HI, Acrypol Fast, Acryself and Acryslef P), two milled obtained from UDMA PMMA disks (Ivotion disk and Aadva disk, control groups), two 3D-printed PMMA resins (NextDent Denture 3D+, and SprintRayEU Denture Base), and one 3D-printed composite resin (GC Temp Print). Flexural strength was measured using a universal testing machine. One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post hoc tests were performed; the p-value was set at 0.05 to consider statistically significant differences among the groups. Spearman test was used to evaluate the correlation between polymerization technique and the flexural strength of 3D-printed resins. Results: CAD-CAM-milled specimens showed the highest flexural strength (107.87 MPa for UDMA) followed by 3D-printed composite resins (102.96 MPa). Furthermore, 3D-printed resins polymerized for 40 min with the BB cure unit showed no statistically significant differences with conventional resin groups. Moreover, in all the 3D-printed specimens, a high correlation between polymerization technique and flexural strength was found. Conclusions: In terms of flexural strength, the polymerization technique is a determinant for both acrylic and composite resins. Temp Print can be a potential alternative to fabricating removable dentures and showed promising results when used in combination with pink color resin powder.

Purpose: To analyze implant and prosthetic survival rates, complications, patient satisfaction, and biological parameters of patients rehabilitated with implant overdentures (IOV) on splinted and nonsplinted implants and different attachment systems, in function for one to 17 years. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated data collected from patients rehabilitated with implant overdentures between January 2001 and December 2016 in nine different centers. Outcome measures were implant and prosthetic success rates, mechanical complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), oral health impact profile (OHIP), bleeding on probing, and plaque index. Results: A total of 581 implants were installed in 194 patients. Patients were followed for a mean period of 60.6 months (range 6–206). Eighty-nine patients received 296 low profile attachment (OT Equator), 62 patients received 124 ball attachments, and 43 patients received 107 Locator attachments. In eighty-three patients the implants were splinted with computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) or casted bar. At the last follow-up, 10 implants failed in eight patients. Statistical significance was found for failed prostheses (P = 0.0723) and complications (P = 0.0165), with better values for splinted implants. No statistically significant differences were found in proportion of implant and prosthetic failure (P > 0.05). At a five-year follow-up, proportion of complications (P = 0.0289) and failed prostheses (P = 0.0069) were statistically higher for IOV on Locator attachments. No difference was founded in MBL at one- and two-year follow-up between different attachment systems (P > 0.05). Statistically significant improvement in all the OHIP categories was reported in all the patients, after one year of function. Conclusions: Implant overdenture showed high implant and prosthetic survival rates, low complications, high patient satisfaction, and good biological parameters in the long-term follow-up. Splinting the implants may reduce number of mechanical complications. Locator attachments showed higher number of complications. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.

This study compared the flexural strength of various 3D printed resins fabricated at different building angles (0°, 45°, and 90°). Four groups of resins were tested: Varseo Smile Teeth (Bego GmbH & Co., Bremen, Germany), V-print C&B Temp (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany), Bego Triniq (Bego GmbH & Co. KG, Bremen, Germany), and Sprintray Crown (SprintRay, Los Angeles, CA, USA). A digital light processing 3D printer (Asiga MAX UV, NSW, Sydney, Australia) was used to fabricate the samples at the specified build angles (0°, 45°, and 90°) in accordance with the ISO 4049:2019 standard. Flexural strength was measured using a universal testing machine (Instron 5567; Instron Ltd., Norwood, MA, USA), and fracture analysis was performed using a scanning electron microscope (Jeol JSM-6060LV, Tokyo, Japan). Statistical analysis was carried out using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 26; IBM Corp., Chicago, IL, USA). Means and standard deviations were calculated for each group, and statistical differences were assessed using one-way ANOVA followed by the Bonferroni post hoc test (p < 0.05). All tested resins exhibited high flexural strength values. The maximum flexural strength was observed in the 0° printed samples (137.18 ± 18.92 MPa), while the lowest values were recorded for the 90° printed samples (116.75 ± 24.74 MPa). For V-print C&B Temp, the flexural strength at 90° (116.97 ± 34.87 MPa) was significantly lower compared to the 0° (156.56 ± 25.58 MPa) and 45° (130.46 ± 12.33 MPa) orientations. In contrast, Bego Triniq samples printed at 45° (148.91 ± 21.23 MPa) demonstrated significantly higher flexural strength than those printed at 0° (113.37 ± 31.93 MPa) or 90° (100.96 ± 16.66 MPa). Overall, the results indicate that the printing angle has a significant impact on the flexural strength of the materials, with some resins showing lower strength values at the 90° build angle.

One of the most critical aspects in intraoral impression is the detection of the finish line, particularly in the case of subgingival preparations. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy among four different Intra Oral Scanners (IOSs) in scanning a subgingival vertical margins preparation (VP). A reference maxillary typodont (MT) was fabricated with a VP for full crown on #16 and #21. The MT was scanned with a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Tokyo, Japan) to obtain a digital MT (dMT) in .stl format file. A group of 40 digital casts (dIOC) were obtained by scanning the MT 10 times with four different IOSs: Trios 3, 3Shape A/S; I700, Medit; Vivascan, Ivoclar; and Experimental IOS, GC. All the obtained dIOCs were imported into an inspection software program (Geomagic Control X; 3D SYSTEMS) to be superimposed to the dMT in order to calculate trueness. Therefore, in order to calculate precision, all the scans of the same scanner group were superimposed onto the cast that obtained the best result of trueness. The results were collected as the root mean square value (RMS) on the #16 and #21 abutment surfaces and on a marginal area positioned 1 mm above and below the gingival margin. A nonparametric analysis Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to compare the RMS values obtained in the different iOS groups for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at 0.05. For the trueness on the #16 abutment, the Vivascan reported statistically lower values, while on the #21 abutment, Vivascan (56.0 ± 12.1) and Experimental IOS, GC (59.2 ± 2.7) performed statistically better than the others. Regarding precision, Experimental IOS, GC were significantly better than the others on #16 (10.7 ± 2.1) and in the #21 area Experimental, GC, and Trios 3 performed statistically better(16.9 ± 13.8; 18.0 ± 2.7). At the subgingival marginal level for both #16 and #21, all the IOS reported reduced accuracy compared to clinical acceptance.

This study compares the clinical performances of two lithium disilicate (Initial LiSi press vs. Initial LiSi Block, GC Corp.) and a 3D printed resin (Temp Print, GC Corp.) partial crown using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation criteria and survival rates after one year of clinical service. Eighty-nine partial adhesive restorations on posterior teeth were realized using different materials: Group 1 used Initial LiSi press, Group 2 used Initial LiSi Block, and Group 3 used Temp Print. An analog workflow was used to realize the restoration of Group 1, while a fully digital workflow was used for Groups 2 and 3. The modified USPHS parameters, together with periodontal parameters, were collected at baseline and at the one-year recall. Contingency tables to assess for significant differences of success over time in each group were used. All modified USPHS parameters showed Alpha or Bravo; no Charlie was recorded. No statistically significant difference emerged between the three groups in any of the assessed variables (p > 0.05). All modified USPHS scores were compatible with the outcome of clinical success, no restoration was replaced or repaired, and the survival rate was 100% at the one-year recall. No difference was found between the traditional and digital workflows used to fabricate the restorations.

Background: Limited data are available regarding the mechanical performance of 3D-printed fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated from different materials and connector geometries. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of connector size and material type on the fracture resistance of three-unit posterior FPDs fabricated with two commercially available 3D-printable dental resins. Methods: A standardized metal model with two cylindrical abutments was used to design three-unit FPDs. A total of sixty samples were produced, considering three connector sizes (3 × 3 mm, 4 × 4 mm, and 5 × 5 mm) and two different resins: Temp Print (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and V-Print c&b temp (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) (n = 10). Specimens were fabricated with a DLP printer (Asiga MAX UV), post-processed per manufacturer recommendations, and tested for fracture resistance under occlusal loading using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis; α = 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found between material and connector size groups (p < 0.001). Temp Print (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) demonstrated higher mean fracture loads (792.34 ± 578.36 N) compared to V-Print c&b temp (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) (359.74 ± 131.64 N), with statistically significant differences at 4 × 4 and 5 × 5 mm connectors. Fracture strength proportionally increased with connector size. FPDs with 5 × 5 mm connectors showed the highest resistance, reaching values above 1500 N. Conclusions: Both connector geometry and material composition significantly affected the fracture resistance of 3D-printed FPDs. Larger connector dimensions and the use of Temp Print (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) resin enhanced mechanical performance.