Newly introduced provisional crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FDP) materials should exhibit good physical and mechanical properties necessary to serve the purpose of their fabrication. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the articles comparing the physical and mechanical properties of 3D-printed provisional crown and FDP resin materials with CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Designing/Computer-Aided Manufacturing) milled and conventional provisional resins. Indexed English literature up to April 2022 was systematically searched for articles using the following electronic databases: MEDLINE-PubMed, Web of Science (core collection), Scopus, and the Cochrane library. This systematic review was structured based on the guidelines given by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The focused PICO/PECO (Participant, Intervention/exposure, Comparison, Outcome) question was: ‘Do 3D-printed (P) provisional crowns and FDPs (I) have similar physical and mechanical properties (O) when compared to CAD/CAM milled and other conventionally fabricated ones (C)’. Out of eight hundred and ninety-six titles, which were recognized after a primary search, twenty-five articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and their quality analysis was performed using the modified CONSORT scale. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, only twelve articles were included for quantitative analysis. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that 3D-printed provisional crown and FDP resin materials have superior mechanical properties but inferior physical properties compared to CAD/CAM milled and other conventionally fabricated ones. Three-dimensionally printed provisional crowns and FDP materials can be used as an alternative to conventional and CAD/CAM milled long-term provisional materials.

Background and Objectives: The present systematic review and meta-analysis undertake a comparison of studies that examine the accuracy of robot-assisted dental implant placement in relation to static computer-assisted implant surgery (SCAIS), dynamic computer-assisted implant surgery (DCAIS), and freehand procedures. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the precision of robot-assisted dental implant placement and its comparative efficacy in relation to other placement techniques. Methods: The guidelines recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) were used to organize and compose this review. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane) were systematically searched for pertinent articles. Articles were selected following the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the selected articles were performed. Results: The initial electronic search resulted in 1087 hits. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, five articles were selected for qualitative analysis, out of which three were considered for quantitative analysis. Three parameters were considered for accuracy evaluation (angular, coronal, and apical deviation). The mean angular deviation was −1.22 degrees (95% CI, −1.06–−1.39), the mean coronal deviation was −0.15 mm (95% CI, −0.24–−0.07), and the mean apical deviation was −0.19 mm (95% CI, −0.27–−0.10). Conclusions: The robotic implant system was found to have significantly lower angular deviations and insignificantly lower coronal and apical deviations compared to DCAIS. Within the limitations of this review, it can be concluded that robot-assisted implant placement in resin models permits higher accuracy compared to DCAIS and SCAIS systems. However, due to the limited number of comparative studies with high heterogeneity, the findings of this review should be interpreted with caution. Further research is necessary to confirm the clinical application of robotics in implant surgery.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the marginal fit and internal adaptation of provisional crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated using 3D-printing resins and compared them with those fabricated by CAD/CAM (computer-aided designing/computer-aided manufacturing) milling and conventional resins. The null hypotheses tested were that there would be no differences in the marginal fit and internal adaptation of 3D-printed provisional crowns and FDP resins when compared to CAD/CAM-milled and conventional provisional resins. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to construct this systematic review. The focused PICO/PECO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) question was “Do provisional crowns and FDPs (P) fabricated by 3D-printing (I) have similar marginal adaptation and internal fit (O) when compared to those fabricated by CAD/CAM milling and conventional techniques (C)?”. The protocol used for this systematic review was pre-registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science (Core Collection)) were systematically searched for indexed English literature published up to June 2022. In the initial electronic search of the selected databases, 519 articles were identified. Duplicates were removed, and screening was performed to select the articles that met the preset inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies were selected for qualitative analysis, but only ten of them provided comparative data and were selected for quantitative analysis. The modified CONSORT scale was used for qualitative analysis, and most of the included studies were rated to be of moderate quality. Based on the findings, it could be concluded that provisional crowns and FDPs fabricated from 3D-printing resins have a superior marginal fit and internal adaptation when compared to CAD/CAM-milled and conventional provisional resins; thus, they can be used as a dependable alternative to other resins.

The goal of the study was to evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL) after 1-year implant placement using a guided implant surgical (GIS) protocol in grafted sockets compared to non-grafted sites. We followed a parallel study design with patients divided into two groups: grafted group (Test group, n = 10) and non-grafted group (Control, n = 10). A bioactive glass bone graft was used for grafting. A single edentulous site with a minimum bone height ≥11 mm and bone width ≥6 mm confirmed by cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) was chosen for implant placement. Tapered hybrid implants that were sandblasted and acid-etched (HSA) were placed using the GIS protocol and immediately loaded with a provisional prosthesis. MBL and implant survival rates (ISR) were assessed based on standardized radiographs and clinical exams. Patients were followed up for 1-year post-loading. MBL after one year, in the control group, was −0.31 ± 0.11 mm (mesial) and −0.28 ± 0.09 mm (distal); and in the test group was −0.35 ± 0.11 mm (mesial) and −0.33 ± 0.13 mm (distal), with no statistical significance (p > 0.05). ISR was 100% in both groups after one year. ISR was similar between groups and the marginal bone changes were comparable one year after functional loading, without statistical significance, suggesting that bioactive glass permitted adequate bone formation. The GIS protocol avoided raising flaps and provided a better position to place implants, preserving the marginal bone around implants.

The aim of this study was to assess the shear bond strength of 3D-printed and milled provisional restorations using various resin materials and surface finishes. There were 160 preliminary samples in all, and they were split into two groups: the milled group and the 3D-printed group. Based on the resin used for repair (composite or polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA)) and the type of surface treatment utilized (chemical or mechanical), each group was further divided into subgroups. The specimens were subjected to thermocycling from 5 °C to 55 °C for up to 5000 thermal cycles with a dwell time of 30 s. The mechanical qualities of the repaired material underwent testing for shear bond strength (SBS). To identify the significant differences between the groups and subgroups, a statistical analysis was carried out. Three-way ANOVA was used to analyze the effects of each independent component (the material and the bonding condition), as well as the interaction between the independent factors on shear bond strength. Tukey multiple post-hoc tests were used to compare the mean results for each material under various bonding circumstances. The shear bond strengths of the various groups and subgroups differed significantly (p < 0.05). When compared to the milled group, the 3D-printed group had a much greater mean shear bond strength. When compared to PMMA repair, the composite resin material showed a noticeably greater shear bond strength. In terms of surface treatments, the samples with mechanical and chemical surface treatments had stronger shear bonds than those that had not received any. The results of this study demonstrate the effect of the fabrication method, resin type, and surface treatment on the shear bond strength of restored provisional restorations. Particularly when made using composite material and given surface treatments, 3D-printed provisional restorations showed exceptional mechanical qualities. These results can help dentists choose the best fabrication methods, resin materials, and surface treatments through which to increase the durability and bond strength of temporary prosthesis.

Background and Objectives: Periodontal surgery requires local anesthetic coverage to alleviate patient discomfort. Needles and injections can engender feelings of fear and anxiety in individuals. This study aimed to assess the level of comfort and anxiety in patients during the administration of local anesthesia using needleless jet anesthesia (JA) when compared to a conventional syringe (CS) in periodontal surgery. Method and Materials: 60 sites were designated for injection in a split-mouth design in 30 subjects who required periodontal surgery. Local anesthesia was administered in two appointments scheduled one week apart using either a JA system or a CS. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Verbal Rating Scale (VRS), and Beck’s anxiety inventory were used to report the pain and anxiety levels while injecting local anesthesia. Statistical analysis of the results was performed using the Shapiro–Wilks test and Paired t-test. Results: Patients reported greater comfort with JA. The VAS and VRS values were statistically significant—(p = 0.003) and (p = 0.001), respectively. Patients showed fear and were nervous about receiving a local anesthetic using a CS. A few subjects experienced lingering pain with the CS, whereas greater comfort and no lingering soreness were reported post-operatively at the site of JA administration. Conclusions: This study provides the first comprehensive assessment of using JA for periodontal surgical procedures. Lower pain scores were consistently observed with the use of jet injectors. Patients were at ease and reported lesser anxiety and greater comfort with jet injectors, making it ideally suited for providing local anesthesia in periodontal surgery.