Intraoperative complications may lead to postoperative complications. Surgical complications did not significantly influence implant survival.

1) Survival of implants supporting overdentures was very high; 2) implants supporting overdentures in the maxilla had greater CBL than in the mandible; and 3) new criteria of implant success should be considered.

No abstract

Denture stomatitis is a common manifestation of oral candidiasis affecting some 65% of denture wearers. This condition is initiated by the adherence of Candida albicans to denture base acrylic resin. The present study aimed to test the in vitro effect of traditional and novel fabrication methods on Candida albicans adhesion to denture base samples. Denture based acrylic discs were fabricated using: (i) computerized milling, (ii) 3D printing, (iii) heat curing, and (iv) cold curing. Discs were tested for surface roughness (Ra), hydrophobicity (contact angle), mucin adsorption (Bradford assay), and Candida albicans adhesion. 3D printing significantly increased microbial cell adhesion as compared with heat curing, and computerized milling significantly decreased it. These results were associated with mucin adsorption levels rather than surface roughness. Results suggest that 3D printing may increase the risk for developing denture stomatitis, whereas computerized milling may decrease it as compared with traditional heat curing denture base fabrication.

Background Marginal fit is critical for the success and longevity of a dental restoration. Zirconia crowns can be fabricated either chair-side, in a dental laboratory or in a milling center; each can give different marginal fits results. However, discussion of the marginal fit of zirconia crowns when different fabrication methods are compared is lacking in the literature. Purpose To compare the marginal discrepancy (MD) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) of computer-aided design, and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) used in a dental laboratory and a milling center for producing monolithic zirconia crowns. Methods The marginal fit of 30 zirconia crowns cemented to typodont teeth was evaluated by means of a sectioning technique. Fifteen crowns were fabricated with a CEREC inLAB MC X5 from IPS e.max ZirCAD blocks. Fifteen crowns were fabricated using a LAVA milling center from LAVA Plus Zirconia Blocks. The 30 crowns were sectioned with a precision saw, and MD and AMD were subsequently measured using a light microscope. Data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA technique to investigate significant differences in the marginal fit between the two fabrication systems (α = .05). Results The AMD dimension of the CEREC inLAB system was significantly smaller ( P < .05). Mean AMD values for zirconia crowns fabricated by the CEREC inLAB were 85 μm, and for the LAVA milling center 133 μm. There was no significant difference between the two systems regarding the MD dimensions. The MD values for zirconia crowns fabricated by the CEREC inLAB were 53 μm and for the LAVA milling center 61 μm. Conclusions The CEREC inLAB system demonstrated significantly better marginal fit in relation to the AMD. However, no difference between the systems was found in the MD. Monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated by the CAD-CAM CEREC inLAB system and the LAVA system milling center showed MD values of less than 120 μm, which is within the clinically acceptable range.

This study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) and micromorphology of composite resin to human dentin after pre-treatment with silica-modified aluminum oxide air abrasion. Forty-six molar teeth were treated with either Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SCMP) or Clearfil SE Bond (CLSE) adhesive. Buccal surfaces were pre-treated with the CoJet air abrasion system (SB), and lingual surfaces were controls. The adhesion of light-cured resin composite to the treated dentin surface was evaluated with SBS. After debonding, substrate surfaces were examined with an optical microscope for failure analysis. In addition, 15 molar teeth were sectioned and randomly assigned to one of five groups, according to the dentin surface pre-treatment and adhesive type, and examined with high-vacuum scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-rays (SEM/EDS). The type of adhesive had a significant effect on SBS (p = 0.000); CLSE had the highest values. SB did not affect SBS (p = 0.090). SEM/EDS revealed residual aluminum and/or silicon on all dentin surfaces after SB, except for the control. Treatment with 32% phosphoric acid in the SCMP adhesive decreased the amounts of aluminum and silicon compared to SB dentin only, whereas CLSE resulted in similar quantities of aluminum and silicon as air-abraded dentin. The results of this study indicate that CLSE might have a higher bond strength to dentin than SCMP. Pre-treatment with SB does not appear to affect bonding strength.

Background: This study compared the influence of three different radial spacers (60,90,120 microns) on the marginal gap adaptation by using computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) for producing monolithic zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramic crowns. Methods: A total of 45 abutment acrylic teeth were divided into three groups of different radial spacers (60, 90, and 120 microns). In each group 15 teeth were scanned by Omnicam intra oral scanner and ZLS crowns were ground. For each unit the marginal gap was evaluated at four regions of interest by scanning electronic microscope (SEM). To compare the marginal gap between the three groups a one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni test was preformed (α = 0.05). Results: The marginal gap for a 60 microns (162.99 ± 16.25 µm) radial spacer was found significantly higher than 90 (41.85 ± 3.57 µm) and 120 (41.85 ± 5.3 µm) microns radial spacers (p < 0.05). Between 90- and 120-micron radial spacers no difference was obtained. (p < 0.05). Conclusions: A radial spacer of 60 microns showed a significantly higher marginal gap compared to 90 and 120 microns and was not clinically accepted (>120 microns). For both 90 and 120 microns the marginal gap was clinically accepted (<120 microns) with no difference between the groups. The radial spacer which should be optimum for CELTRA® DUO crowns is 90 microns.

Background: This study compared the marginal gap (MG) and absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD–CAM) used in open systems (OSs) and closed systems (CSs) for producing monolithic zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) ceramic crowns. Methods: 60 ZLS ceramic crowns were cemented to abutment acrylic teeth; thirty crowns were designed and milled by an OS, and thirty by a CS. All crowns were sectioned for evaluating the marginal gap by scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). To compare the marginal gap between CS and OS techniques, data were analyzed using the independent-samples Mann–Whitney U Test (α = 0.05). Results: AMD was found to be significantly better for the closed system (p < 0.05). Mean AMD values for the CS were 148 µm, and for the OS it was 196 µm. MG was found to be significantly better for the OS (p < 0.05). Mean MG values for the CS were 55 µm, and for the OS they were 38 µm. Conclusions: The marginal gap in relation to AMD was significantly better for CS. However, the marginal gap in relation to MG was significantly better for OS. Both techniques showed clinically acceptable MG values (<120 µm).