Despite excellent accuracy in single-unit scans having been demonstrated, little is known about the accuracy of intraoral scanners in simultaneous scans of multiple abutments. Although most of the tested scanners showed comparable values, the results suggest that the inaccuracies of the obtained datasets may contribute to inaccuracies in the final restorations.

Within the limits of this animal experiment, it can be concluded that the custom-made zirconia implants osseointegrated to the same extent as custom-made titanium control implants and show the same peri-implant soft tissue dimensions.

No abstract

No abstract

The in vitro marginal fit of five different all-ceramic crown systems (In-Ceram, Empress staining technique, Empress veneering technique, Celay feldspathic system, Celay In-Ceram system) was evaluated before and after cyclic preloading in an artificial mouth. The crowns were adhesively luted to extracted natural maxillary incisors prepared with a 90 degrees shoulder. The results were compared to those for porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns with circular porcelain-butt margins which were cemented with zinc phosphate cement. The analysis of the marginal discrepancies showed significant (P < 0.001) differences among the groups. Crown cementation increased the marginal gaps significantly (P < 0.01). Empress staining technique crowns showed the smallest marginal gaps (median 47 microm), followed by conventional In-Ceram crowns (median 60 microm) and Empress veneer technique crowns (median 62 microm). Celay In-Ceram crowns displayed marginal openings with a median of 78 microm, followed by Celay feldspathic crowns with a median of 99 microm. The marginal gap of the PFM control crowns showed a median of 64 microm. Ageing in the chewing simulator had no significant influence on the marginal fit of all specimens. The study indicates that all the tested all-ceramic crowns have clinically acceptable margins. However, in vivo investigations of all all-ceramic crown systems should be made before clinical routine.

No abstract

No abstract

The available data provide promising short-term results for the all-on-four treatment approach; however, current evidence is limited by the quality of available studies and the paucity of data on long-term clinical outcomes of 5 years or greater. In terms of an evidence-based dentistry, the authors recommend further studies designed as randomized controlled clinical trials and reported according to the CONSORT statement.