Objectives The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the heat generation during guided osteotomy preparation (GOP) with that of a conventional approach (CA) for a single and sequential drilling protocol. Methods Temperature measurements were performed during standardized osteotomy preparations in polyurethane foam blocks with an infrared camera. The four groups included single and sequential drilling with and without the use of a surgical guide. In the first group (single CA) and the second group (single GOP), only the final drills diameters were applied once. In the third group (sequential CA) and the fourth group (sequential GOP), two to four drills with increasing diameters were applied. Guided and conventional as well as single and sequential drilling were compared using a one‐way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc test. The level of statistical significance was set at α = 0.05. Results Guided osteotomy preparation showed statistically significant higher temperatures than CA for the 2.2 mm, the 3.5 mm, and the 4.2 mm drill (p = 0.032, p = 0.005 and p < 0.001, respectively). Sequential drilling led to higher heat generation and longer duration of latent heat than single drilling. For all drilling procedures, the duration of heat exposure over critical temperature was less than 1 min, except for the sequential GOP drilling protocol with the 4.2 mm drill (76 s). Conclusions Guided drilling requires specific attention to heat development. When guided implant surgery is performed, a single drilling procedure could alleviate heat production compared to a sequential procedure.
ObjectivesMaxillary sinus augmentation (MSA) is a successful and predictable intervention with low complication rates. Perforations of the Schneiderian membrane may occur impairing the general success. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of membrane perforations between conventional rotating instruments and piezoelectric devices in a meta-analysis.Material and methodsAn electronic research on MEDLINE and PubMed database was performed evaluating the literature from 1980 till 2016. Meta-analysis was performed with the studies matching the inclusion criteria. The incidence of perforations between conventional and piezo during the lateral maxillary sinus floor elevation was determined, and forest plots and a t test for significance analysis were performed.ResultsThe search provided 377 articles of which 69 could be included. Selected non-randomised and non-controlled prospective and retrospective studies were incorporated. Conventional rotary instruments were associated with a perforation rate of 24%, the piezoelectric devices with 8% with statistically significant difference between both modalities (p < 0.05).ConclusionMembrane perforations in MSA may be significantly reduced applying piezoelectrical devices for MSA.
The clinician may have considerable impact on the accuracy of GIS when applying eccentric forces.
ObjectivesTo compare the stability of a screw‐retained connection in a novel two‐piece zirconia implant to a conventional titanium‐based connection in an in vitro chewing simulation including artificial ageing.Material and methodsIncisor (I) and molar (M) shaped monolithic zirconia crowns were screw‐retained on either two‐piece zirconia (test) or two‐piece titanium (control) implants resulting in 4 groups of 8 samples (titanium implants with incisor‐shaped crowns (T‐I), titanium implants with molar‐shaped crowns (T‐M), zirconia implants with incisor‐shaped crowns (Z‐I) and zirconia implants with molar‐shaped crowns (Z‐M). These were subjected to artificial ageing by thermal cycling (TC: 2 × 3000 × 5°C/55°C cycles of 2 min) and mechanical loading (ML: 1.2 × 106 cycles of 50 N, f = 1 Hz). Surviving samples additionally underwent a fracture force test. Kaplan–Meier plots were drawn, and two‐way ANOVA was calculated taking anatomical localisation and material variables as factors.ResultsThe mean corresponding survival times were lower for T‐M (0.86 × 106 ± 0.31 × 106 cycles) and Z‐I (0.84 × 106 ± 0.21 × 106 cycles) compared to T‐I (1.14 × 106 ± 0.10 × 106 cycles) and Z‐M (1.20 × 106 ± 0.10 × 106 cycles). In one‐way ANOVAs for survival time dependent on either location or material, no statistically significant differences could be found (location: p = .31; material: p = .62) in one‐way ANOVAs. The interaction of location and material showed significant differences (F = 21.3, p < .001).ConclusionThe connection of the tested screw‐retained zirconia crowns in two‐piece zirconia implants is comparable to standard titanium implants in the specific in vitro testing.
Background: 3D printing is a rapidly developing technology in the healthcare industry and in dentistry. Its application clearly shows that this area of digital dentistry has potential for everyday usage across all fields, including prosthodontics, orthodontics, maxillofacial surgery, and oral implantology. However, despite gaining ground, there is a lack of information about how specialists (dentists and dental technicians) use additive technology. Our research group aimed to investigate the impact of social media on additive manufacturing technology among dental specialists and their everyday usage of 3D printing. Methods: This paper investigated specialists’ everyday usage of 3D printers via an online survey (Google Forms). The survey questions aimed to discover the number of 3D printers used, the accessibility of the devices, the annual cost, and the design programs. Since specialists tend to build online communities on social media, we circulated our study questionnaire using our profiles on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram platforms during our research. Results: A total of 120 responses were received from 20 countries, with the most significant numbers being from Hungary 23.7% (n = 27), the United States 18.4% (n = 21), and the United Kingdom 7.9% (n = 9). Most of the participants were dentists (n = 68) or dental technicians (n = 29), but some CAD/CAM specialists (n = 23) also completed our survey. The participants had an average of 3.8 years (±0.7) of experience in the 3D printing field, and owned a total of 405 printing devices (3.6 on average/person). Conclusions: The impact of social media on this research field is growing increasingly. Hence, we support specialists in joining virtual communities on professional platforms. This article intended to provide a practical overview, feedback, and direction for dentists interested in 3D printing technology. From our survey, we can conclude that additive technology is broadening dental applications and the services that we can provide for our patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.