No abstract

Newly introduced provisional crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FDP) materials should exhibit good physical and mechanical properties necessary to serve the purpose of their fabrication. The aim of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the articles comparing the physical and mechanical properties of 3D-printed provisional crown and FDP resin materials with CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Designing/Computer-Aided Manufacturing) milled and conventional provisional resins. Indexed English literature up to April 2022 was systematically searched for articles using the following electronic databases: MEDLINE-PubMed, Web of Science (core collection), Scopus, and the Cochrane library. This systematic review was structured based on the guidelines given by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The focused PICO/PECO (Participant, Intervention/exposure, Comparison, Outcome) question was: ‘Do 3D-printed (P) provisional crowns and FDPs (I) have similar physical and mechanical properties (O) when compared to CAD/CAM milled and other conventionally fabricated ones (C)’. Out of eight hundred and ninety-six titles, which were recognized after a primary search, twenty-five articles were included in the qualitative analysis, and their quality analysis was performed using the modified CONSORT scale. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, only twelve articles were included for quantitative analysis. Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that 3D-printed provisional crown and FDP resin materials have superior mechanical properties but inferior physical properties compared to CAD/CAM milled and other conventionally fabricated ones. Three-dimensionally printed provisional crowns and FDP materials can be used as an alternative to conventional and CAD/CAM milled long-term provisional materials.

The findings were analyzed using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD test. Comparison of weight loss and volume loss between Surana ultradent, Premadent and Dentek showed highly significant difference, Surana ultraddent having better wear resistance. Surana ultradent acrylic resin denture had highest wear resistance amongst the three groups of tested samples.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The importance of an accurately fitting fixed prosthesis or a removable prosthesis is essential for the success of the restoration. Ill-fitting prosthesis may cause mechanical failures of the prosthesis, implant systems, or biologic complications of the surrounding tissue. There are several causes related to improper seating of the prosthesis. Some of which can be corrected and the others need to be repeated. Hence the clinician must carefully evaluate the adaptation of the prosthesis using the clinical techniques and combination of the available materials and evaluation methods to optimize the fit of prosthesis. This article reviews the various clinical methods that have been suggested for evaluating the fit of the fixed and removable prosthesis.

Purpose: The study was conducted to evaluate the retentiveness of specifically formulated implant cements and compare its retentiveness with a commonly used noneugenol zinc oxide luting cement and also to assess the influence of abutment height on the retentiveness of these cements. Materials and Methods: A master stainless steel mold was used to mount snappy abutment-implant analog complex in acrylic resin. A total of six snappy abutments (Nobel Biocare ® ) of 4 mm and 5.5 mm height with their analogs were used. A total of 66 ceramill ® Sintron metal copings fabricated using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing system and divided into six groups ( n = 11) according to the height (three 4 mm abutment and three 5.5 mm abutment). The cements that were compared were a Noneugenol zinc oxide provisional cement (Temp-Bond™ NE), a Noneugenol temporary resin cement (Premier ® Implant Cement) and a resin based acrylic urethane cement (Implalute ® Implant Cement). After cementation samples were immersed in artificial saliva for 7 days and subjected to a pull-out test using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The load required to de-cement each coping was recorded and analyzed using one-way ANOVA, post hoc multiple comparison, and independent t -test. Results: Noneugenol temporary resin cement had the highest tensile strength followed by noneugenol zinc oxide cement and the least retentive strength was observed in resin-based acrylic urethane cement. Conclusion: The results suggest that noneugenol temporary resin cement may be considered as a better choice for cementation of implant prosthesis, as it has shown to have better mechanical properties.