This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

To determine the effect of titanium (Ti) surface modification by ultraviolet irradiation (UVI) on the bond strength between Ti and porcelain. Grade 2 Ti plates were allotted to five groups: sandblasted (SA), 15 min UVI (UV), SA+5 min UVI (SA+UV5), SA+10 min UVI (SA+UV10), and SA+15 min UVI (SA+UV15). After surface treatment, porcelain was added. A precious metal (MC) was used for comparison with Ti. The effects of 24-h storage at room temperature versus thermal cycling only at 5 and 55°C in water were evaluated. Subsequently, the tensile strength of each sample was tested. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test. In both the room temperature and thermal cycling groups, the MC and SA+15 min UVI samples showed significantly greater bond strengths than the other samples (p<0.05). UVI processing efficiently increases the bond strength between porcelain and the Ti surface.

IntroductionPerforation of the Schneiderian membrane is the most common complication in sinus floor augmentation (SFA). When volume of grafting is qualified to prevent enlargement of the membrane perforation, lack of bone volume may occur in optimal site.Case presentationSFA was performed in sites #24 to 26 in a 63-year-old male. However, a 10-mm size perforation of the Schneiderian membrane occurred in site #26. Although the sinus cavity was grafted with deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) after repair of membrane perforation, insufficient bone formation was observed on palatal and distal aspects of site #26 at 5 months after SFA. Although additional SFA was required for implant placement, it seemed to be difficult to elevate the membrane by a conventional lateral approach in the palatal aspect of the sinus floor (site #26). Considering the configuration of new bone formation, it was decided to perform the palatal antrostomy approach. The Schneiderian membrane was elevated without perforation, and the sinus cavity was grafted with DBBM mixed with venous blood. Two 12-mm long, 4.1-mm diameter implants were placed in sites #14 and 16. Four months after implant placement, abutment-connection surgery was successfully performed. The radiographic image indicated improved radiopacity, without obvious bone resorption in site #26.ConclusionThe palatal window osteotomy technique could be considered as an alternative method for augmentation of maxillary sinus in cases where difficulty is encountered to elevate a membrane by a conventional approach (e.g., in cases in which buccal bone height is long).

Background:Study comparing the improvement of implant maintenance is limited. Clinicians must be aware of implant maintenance to improve long-term success of implant.Aims:The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate whether the Medical Treatment Model (MTM), which is a comprehensive treatment, includes initial risk assessment, lifestyle instructions, such as diet and habits, and a customized maintenance program to improve implant prognosis.Materials and Methods:Patients who were comprehensively treated were included and divided into two groups, test and control groups. The test group included patients who started treatment with MTM, whereas control group included patients who started treatment without MTM introduction. Moreover, subsequently, compliance with maintenance, occurrence of biological complications, and implant failure were evaluated.Results:About 199 patients with 515 implants were analyzed in the control group and 38 patients with 59 implants in the test group. In the control and test groups, the percentages of patients in the four compliance categories were, respectively, 73.9% and 89.5% for excellent compliance, 7.0% and 7.9% for good compliance, 14.6% and 0% for fair compliance, and 4.5% and 2.6% for poor compliance. There was a statistically significant difference in the compliance with periodontal and implant maintenance between the test and control groups (P = 0.029).Conclusions:Within the limitation of this study, MTM significantly enhanced the compliance of patients treated with implants.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract