Introduction > After the mandibular third molars, the maxillary canines are the most displaced or impacted teeth in permanent dentition. Surgical-orthodontic disimpaction of impacted canines, followed by aesthetic reconstructions, can be a successful treatment choice. Aim > The aim of this case report was to describe the smile restoration through simultaneous surgical disimpaction of the two upper permanent canines in a 13-year-old patient who also presented with agenesis of the right upper lateral incisor and a conoid-shaped left upper lateral incisor. Treatment protocol > The present case report followed the Care Checklist For Case Reports. After having completed the multibrackets fixed orthodontic therapy phase necessary for the preparation of the anchorage, avulsions of the upper deciduous canines were carried out, followed by the making of surgical full thickness palatal flap in order to perform traction of the permanent canines, and an orthodontic eyelet with passive metal looped ligatures was applied. One week after the surgery, traction was started with Crescini-double arch technique. Subsequently, the avulsion of elements 2.2 and 5.2 were executed. At the end of orthodontic treatment, in order to optimise the aesthetics and function of the canines, a restorative treatment was carried out. Results and conclusions > After the surgical creation of a palatal flap, the disimpaction of the two upper canines, using the double arch technique, allowed the teeth to be moved into the desired position on the upper arch.

Three-dimensional printing is rapidly growing in applied dentistry. In order to print faster, increase workflow, and minimize the consumption of resin material, it is important to use the right printer and the correct printing orientation. The objective of the present report is to analyze the flexural strength of specimens realized with two different dental light-curing resins (Keyguide and C&B) obtained from two different Digital Light Processing (DLP) 3D printers. Different printing orientations (0°, 45°, and 90°) were evaluated. 3D Builder, MeshMixer, RayWare, and Chitubox software were used to design the resin specimens. A total of 15 Keyguide and 15 C&B specimens in the shape of a rectangular parallelepiped, with dimensions of 2 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm, were obtained with the Sprintray Moonray S 3D printer, and the 15 Keyguide and 15 C&B specimens presented the same characteristics as those printed using the Moon Night printer. Prior to sample printing, a calibration protocol (tolerance test and dimensional accuracy test) was performed using RayWare software. This procedure allowed compensation for resin shrinkage or expansion, thus ensuring dimensional consistency in all printed samples. Each resin specimen, after printing and post-processing (MoonWash 2 and MoonLight 2), was subjected to a mechanical test with a universal testing machine. After breaking the specimen, the flexural strength values were recorded with computer software (Bluehill, Instron Corporation, Canton, MA, USA). According to the results obtained, the printing orientation of the specimens does not affect the flexural strength of the two materials examined. However, at the maximum load, some differences emerged for both materials printed with the Moon Night printer, depending on their build angle. Both light-cured resins tested had a higher maximum load resistance when printed with the newer Moon Night printer. This result could be due to the Moon Night printer’s better construction characteristics compared to those of the Sprintray or to issues related to the dimensional calibration of the specimens.

Three-dimensional printing is growing rapidly in applied dentistry. To print faster, increase workflow, and minimise resin consumption, it is important to use the right printer and correct printing orientation. This report aims to analyse whether different printing orientations and types of printing materials could affect the flexural strength of a series of photopolymerisable resin samples. Seven different dental light-curing resins (Keyguide, C&B, Ivory, Vertysguide, Bite, Tera, and Nextdent Cast) and a single modern digital light processing (DLP) 3D printer (Moon Night) were used for this purpose. Different printing orientations (0°, 45°, and 90°) were evaluated. The resin specimens were designed using 3D Builder 20.0.4.0, MeshMixer 3.5.0 and Chitubox software 2.0.8. A total of 15 specimens (five for each orientation evaluated) in the shape of a rectangular parallelepiped with dimensions of 2 mm × 2 mm × 25 mm were produced for each of the seven selected resin materials with the Moon Night printer. After printing and post-processing (MoonWash 2 and MoonLight 2), each resin specimen was subjected to a mechanical test with a universal testing machine. After breaking the specimen, the flexural strength values were recorded using Bluehill computer software (Instron Corporation, Canton, MA, USA). According to the obtained results, the build angle does not affect the flexural strength of the printed products, whereas the difference occurs due to the different printing materials used.