Introduction/Objective. The pain that originate of the musculoskeletal structures of the mastication system is one of the symptoms belonging to the category of temporomandibular disorders or temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD). The aim of the research was to evaluate the effect of therapy with stabilizing occlusal splint in the control of painful symptoms of TMD in comparison with the effect of drug therapy. Methods. Using a standard diagnostic protocol Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD) proposed by Dworkin and LeResche, a group of 44 patients with painful temporomandibular dysfunctions was included. Patients were divided into three treatment groups by random selection. The first group was treated with stabilization occlusal splint for a period of one month. In the two control groups was carried out a combination therapy with non-steroidal antiinflammatory drug Ibuprofen (Brufen®, Mylan) or Ibuprofen and medicine from benzodiazepine family Diazepam (Diazepam®, Hemofarm) for a period of three weeks. In order to assess the effects of therapy with stabilizing occlusal splint and drug therapy, before and after the therapy, pain intensity measurements were performed with visual analogue scale (VAS) and digital pressure algometer. Results. A significant reduction in the intensity of painful symptoms has been achieved in all three therapeutic groups. No significant differences in the effectiveness of pain reduction between the proposed therapeutic modalities were noted. Conclusion. The obtained results confirm that therapy with stabilization occlusal splint is a valid procedure in the reduction of pain in patients with TMD.

To evaluate the clinical accuracy and short-term outcomes of complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs) fabricated using an intraoral photogrammetry (IPG) based digital workflow in completely edentulous patients. This multicenter retrospective clinical study included 35 patients rehabilitated with 52 complete-arch ISFDPs (10 FP1, 18 FP2 and 24 FP3 restorations) supported by 221 implants. All definitive prostheses were designed and fabricated using a fully digital workflow initiated by IPG acquisition with the Aoralscan Elite IPG® (SHINING 3D). The primary outcome was clinical accuracy, assessed at definitive prosthesis delivery through evaluation of passive fit using the Sheffield test and radiographic verification. Secondary outcomes included biologic and prosthetic complications, as well as implant and prosthesis survival rates during the follow-up. Passive fit was achieved in all definitive restorations (100%). Radiographic evaluation confirmed accurate marginal adaptation at the implant-prosthesis interface in all cases. No statistically significant differences in clinical accuracy were observed according to treated arch, number of supporting implants, or prosthetic design (P > .05). During a mean follow-up period of 12.1 ± 3.5 months, biologic and prosthetic complications were limited and generally minor. Implant survival was 99.5%, and prosthesis survival was 100%. Within the limitations of this retrospective clinical study, the IPG based workflow demonstrated high clinical accuracy and predictable short-term outcomes for complete-arch implant rehabilitation, consistently enabling passive fit and favorable prosthetic performance. IPG may represent a clinically reliable and predictable approach for complete-arch digital implant impression acquisition. The high rates of passive fit, together with the low incidence of biologic and prosthetic complications observed in this multicenter clinical study, support the use of IPG based workflows for the fabrication of complete-arch ISFDPs.

Background/Aim. Given that frequent manipulation of the abutment during immediate loading can have a negative impact on the surrounding peri-implant hard and soft tissues, the concept ?one abutment at one time? (OAO) has been introduced and documented in daily clinical practice. The aim of the study was to evaluate changes in peri-implant bone levels, clinical and radiographic parameters, and patient perspectives during the six-month follow-up period. Methods. The study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients with bilaterally healed sites in the posterior mandible received implants with a diameter of no less than 3.5 mm and a length of at least 8 mm. Based on randomization, patients were divided into a test group and a control group. Patients who were in the test group received implants that were immediately loaded with definitive abutments. In contrast, patients in the control group received implants where healing abutments were placed, followed by temporary abutments. Implants were immediately loaded with provisional restorations within the first seven days. They were delivered over the test group?s definitive abutment and the control group?s temporary abutment. Probing depth, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, plaque index, and keratinized tissue width were measured. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and the Oral Health Impact Profile - 19 (OHIP-19) questionnaires were noted. Results. Out of 24 included patients, 22 completed the six-month follow-up. Peri-implant bone loss between study groups was comparable (mesial: t = -0.798, df = 21, p = 0.434; distal: t = 1.688, df = 21, p = 0.106), without statistical inter-group significance. OHIP-19 total scores significantly decreased after three months and remained similar six months after the implant placement in both groups without statistically relevant clinical inter-group changes. Conclusion. The OAO approach and provisional abutments showed comparable effectiveness regarding the immediate loading of posterior single implants.