To compare the trueness and precision of 3D-printed versus milled monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs). A model of a maxilla with a prepared premolar was scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOSQ®, Gom) and an MZC was designed in computer-assisted-design (CAD) software (DentalCad®, Exocad). From that standard tessellation language (STL) file, 10 MZCs (test) were 3D-printed with a Lithography-based Ceramic Manufacturing (LCM) printer (CerafabS65®, Lithoz) and 10 MZCs (control) were milled using a 5-axis machine (DWX-52D®, DGShape). All MZCs were sintered and scanned with the aforementioned scanner. The surface data of each sample (overall crown, marginal area, occlusal surface) were superimposed to the original CAD file (ControlX®, Geomagic) to evaluate trueness: (90-10)/2, absolute average (ABS AVG) and root mean square (RMS) values were obtained for test and control groups (MathLab®, Mathworks) and used for analysis. Finally, the clinical precision (marginal adaptation, interproximal contacts) of test and control MZCs was investigated on a split-cast model printed (Solflex350®, Voco) from the CAD project, and compared. The milled MZCs had a significantly higher trueness than the 3D-printed ones, overall [(90-10)/2 printed 37.8 µm vs milled 21.2 µm; ABS AVG printed 27.2 µm vs milled 15.1 µm; RMS printed 33.2 µm vs milled 20.5 µm; p = 0.000005], at the margins [(90-10)/2 printed 25.6 µm vs milled 12.4 µm; ABS AVG printed 17.8 µm vs milled 9.4 µm; RMS printed 22.8 µm vs milled 15.6 µm; p= 0.000011] and at the occlusal level [(90-10)/2 printed 50.4 µm vs milled 21.9 µm; ABS AVG printed 29.6 µm vs milled 14.7 µm; RMS printed 38.9 µm vs milled 22.5 µm; p = 0.000005]. However, with regard to precision, both test and control groups scored highly, with no significant difference either in the quality of interproximal contact points (p = 0.355) or marginal closure (p = 0.355). Milled MZCs had a statistically higher trueness than 3D-printed ones; all crowns, however, showed high precision, compatible with the clinical use. Although milled MZCs remain more accurate than 3D-printed ones, the LCM technique seems able to guarantee the production of clinically precise zirconia crowns.

The strict link between periodontitis (PD) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has been widely demonstrated by several studies. PD is significantly more frequent in RA patients in comparison with healthy subjects: this prevalence is higher in individuals at the earliest stages of disease and in seropositive patients. This is probably related to the role ofP. gingivalisin inducing citrullination and leading to the development of the new antigens. Despite the many studies conducted on this topic, there is very little data available concerning the possibility to use the same biomarkers to evaluate both RA and PD patients. The aim of the review is to summarize this issue. Starting from genetic factors, data from literature demonstrated the association between HLA-DRB1 alleles and PD susceptibility, similar to RA patients; moreover, SE-positive patients showed simultaneously structural damage to the wrist and periodontal sites. Contrasting results are available concerning other genetic polymorphisms. Moreover, the possible role of proinflammatory cytokines, such as TNF and IL6 and autoantibodies, specifically anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies, has been examined, suggesting the need to perform further studies to better define this issue.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) has taken hold in public health because more and more people are looking to make a diagnosis using technology that allows them to work faster and more accurately, reducing costs and the number of medical errors. Methods: In the present study, 120 panoramic X-rays (OPGs) were randomly selected from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences of Sapienza University of Rome, Italy. The OPGs were acquired and analyzed using Apox, which takes a panoramic X-rayand automatically returns the dental formula, the presence of dental implants, prosthetic crowns, fillings and root remnants. A descriptive analysis was performed presenting the categorical variables as absolute and relative frequencies. Results: In total, the number of true positive (TP) values was 2.195 (19.06%); true negative (TN), 8.908 (77.34%); false positive (FP), 132 (1.15%); and false negative (FN), 283 (2.46%). The overall sensitivity was 0.89, while the overall specificity was 0.98. Conclusions: The present study shows the latest achievements in dentistry, analyzing the application and credibility of a new diagnostic method to improve the work of dentists and the patients’ care.

Objectives: to retrospectively evaluate clinical and radiographic outcomes of immediate, flapless full‐arch prostheses, supported by 4/6 implants according to prosthetic‐driven planning and guided surgery.Materials and Methods: The study involved 28 edentulous patients (20 female/8 males; average age 67.75 ± 8.627 years), 32 prostheses (17 all‐on‐4/15 all‐on‐6) and 164 implants. The Implants survival, prostheses success/survival, peri‐implant marginal bone loss, incidence of biological and prosthetic complications were evaluated. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to analyze the influence of implant and patient characteristics on marginal bone loss.Results: Cumulative implant survival rate was 89.7% for all‐on‐four (seven failures) and 99.0% for all‐on‐six (one failure) after a mean follow‐up of 6.46 ± 2.236 years (range 1–10 years). Cumulative prosthesis success rate was 51.5% (58.8% for all‐on‐four/ 43.8% for all‐on‐six). Prosthesis survival rate was 88.2% for all‐on‐four. No failure was registered in all‐on‐six. Mean value of marginal bone loss was 1.38 ± 0.1.28 mm at 5‐year and 2.09 ± 0.56 mm at 10‐year follow‐up. No difference was found in the mean value of marginal bone resorption between all‐on‐four (1.56 ± 1.61 mm) and all‐on‐six (1.20 ± 0.85 mm) (p = 0.104) and between tilted (1.22 ± 1.29 mm) and axial implants (1.44 ± 1.27 mm) (p = 0.385) after 5‐year follow‐up. The incidence of biological complications was 1.0% in all‐on‐six (one mucositis) and 10.3% in all‐on‐four (two peri‐implantitis). Prosthetic complications affected teeth of final rehabilitations with 3 detachments, 10 chippings or fractures, and 3 severe occlusal wears.Conclusions: Based on the results and within the limitations of the present study, the implant‐supported hybrid prosthesis according to prosthetic‐driven planning and guided surgery showed to be an efficient, safe, and effective approach to rehabilitate edentulous jaws.

Objectives: The use of digital devices is strongly influencing the dental rehabilitation workflow both for single-crown rehabilitation and for full-arch prosthetic treatments. Methods: In this study, trueness was analyzed by overlapping the scan dataset made with Medit I-500 (by using two different tips and two different scan strategies) with the scan dataset made with lab scanning, and the values of the (90°–10°)/2 method were reported. Precision was evaluated by using the same values of trueness coming from the intra-group overlapping (scan dataset made with an IOS overlapped and compared to each other). Moreover, two different software programs of overlapping were used to calculate accuracy values. Results: The mean difference of trueness was 26.61 ± 5.07 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using a new design of the tip, 37.99 ± 4.94 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip, and 51.22 ± 6.57 µm with a new strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip. The mean difference of precision was 23.57 ± 5.77 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using a new design of the tip, 38.34 ± 11.39 µm with the suggested strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip, and 46.93 ± 7.15 µm with a new strategy of intraoral scanning and using the old design of the tip. No difference was found in the trueness and precision data extracted using the two different programs of superimposition Geomagic Control X and Medit Compare. Conclusions: The outcomes of this study showed that the latest version of I-Medit 500 with the use of a new tip seems to be promising in terms of accuracy when a full arch needs to be scanned. Moreover, Medit Compare, which is an application of Medit IOS software, can be used to calculate IOS accuracy.