BackgroundTo evaluate the effect of Low Level Laser (LLL) application at the points of greatest pain in patients with chronic masticatory muscle pain.MethodsA total number of 30 (21 women, 9 men, with a mean age of 39.2) were selected after the diagnosis of MPDS according to the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorder (RDC/TMD). The patients were randomly divided into three groups; laser group I (n = 10); patients received the LLL at the point of greatest pain, laser group II (n = 10); patients received LLL at pre-established points in the effected muscles and placebo group (n = 10). LLL and placebo were applied three times per week, for a total of 12 sessions. Mandibular mobility was examined, masticator muscles tenderness were assessed and PPT values were obtained. Subjective pain levels were evaluated using VAS. The measurements performed before the treatment and after the completion of the therapy. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, and frequency) Student’s t-test, Mann–Whitney U-test and paired-sample t-tests were used for analysis.ResultsIn both laser groups, there was a statically significant reduction in PPT values of the muscles, number of muscles without any pain on palpation increased significantly, mandibular movements’ ranges were improved. Laser group I demonstrated statistically better results than the Laser group II in all of the measured values. Plasebo group did not show any statistically difference in any of the measured values.ConclusionsLLLT can be accepted as an alternative treatment modality in the management of masticatory muscle pain and direct irradiation seems to effect better.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN31085, Date of registration 28/08/20145.

No abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of different direct implant impression techniques for edentulous arches with multiple implants. Methods: Five experimental groups (n = 5) were assembled. Experimental models were created by a direct splinted technique (EG2 to EG5) and a non-splinted technique (EG1). In EG2 and EG3 synOcta impression copings were splinted with an acrylic resin bar, and in EG4 and EG5 with a light-curing composite resin bar. In EG3 and EG5 the resin bars were sectioned, while the other experimental groups were not. Three-dimensional discrepancies were measured by a computerized coordinate measuring machine. Distortion values among the groups were analysed using one-way repeated measures ANOVA. The post hoc Tukey's test was then performed for multiple comparisons. Results: The highest accuracy was obtained in EG2 (mean deviation: 12.70 lm). The acrylic bars demonstrated less deviation (12.70 lm and 22.71 lm) from the master model than the light-curing composite resin groups and the nonsplinted group (41.09 lm). The post hoc Tukey's test showed no significant difference among the groups when the effect of splint design on accuracy was investigated. Conclusions: For situations where impressions of multiple implants are to be made, splinting impression copings with acrylic resin demonstrate superior results than the non-splinted technique and splinting with light-curing composite.

Purpose:The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of thickness of zirconia on curing efficiency of resin cements.Materials and Methods:Four discs with 4.0 mm in diameter were prepared from non-HIP translucent zirconia blocks using a CAD/CAM system and feldspathic ceramic was layered onto discs. Thus, 4 ceramic disc samples were fabricated: (G) 0.5 mm zirconia- as a control group, (G1) 0.5 mm zirconia and 0.5 mm feldspathic, (G2) 1.0 mm zirconia and 0.5 mm feldspathic and (G3) 2.0 mm zirconia and 0.5 mm feldspathic ceramic layer. 2 different dual cure cements were polymerized using a LED curing unit. Degree of conversion was evaluated using Vickers Hardness Test and depths of cure of samples were measured. Data were analyzed statistically using One-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD test (p<0.05).Results:Microhardness and depth of cure values were different under same thickness of ceramic discs for two resin cements. As the thickness of the zirconia discs increased, the microhardness values and depth of cure decreased.Conclusion:Photocuring time cannot be the same for all clinical conditions, under thicker zirconia restorations (>2.0 mm), an extended period of light curing or a light unit with a high irradiance should be used.

Polyether and PVS can safely be used for the impressions of the edentulous arches with multiple implants and different tray types produce similar accuracy results.