Purpose: To analyze the accuracy of two computer-aided navigation techniques to guide the performance of endodontic access cavities compared with the conventional access procedure. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 single-rooted anterior teeth were selected, which were randomly distributed into three study groups: Group A—guided performance of endodontic access cavities through computer-aided static navigation system (n = 10) (SN); Group B—guided performance of endodontic access cavities through computer-aided dynamic navigation system (n = 10) (DN); and Group C—manual (freehand) performance of endodontic access cavities (n = 10) (MN). The endodontic access cavities of the SN group were performed with a stereolithography template designed on 3D implant planning software, based on preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a 3D extraoral surface scan, and endodontic access cavities of the DN group were planned and performed by the dynamic navigation system. After endodontic access cavities were performed, a second CBCT was done, and the degree of accuracy between the planned and performed endodontic access cavities was analyzed using therapeutic planning software and Student’s t-test. Results: Paired t-test revealed no statistically significant differences between SN and DN at the coronal (p = 0.6542), apical (p = 0.9144), or angular (p = 0.0724) level; however, statistically significant differences were observed between the two computer-aided navigation techniques and the MN group at the coronal (p < 0.0001), apical (p < 0.0001), and angular (p < 0.0001) level. Conclusion: Both computer-aided static and dynamic navigation procedures allowed accurate performance of endodontic access cavities.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and to compare the fracture load and the fracture pattern of monolithic and veneered zirconia posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Twenty standardized steel dies were prepared to receive posterior 3-unit FDPs. Specimens were randomly divided into 2 groups (n=10): (1) Lava Zirconia, and (2) Lava Plus. All FDPs were cemented using glass ionomer cement and subjected to thermal and mechanical cycling at 5-55ºC with a 30-s dwell time for 120,000 masticatory cycles. All specimens were subjected to a three-point bending test until fracture. Data were statistically analyzed using Student's t test, paired t-test and Weibull statistics (α=0.05). No differences were observed in fracture load between the groups. Veneering ceramic fractured before than framework in veneered zirconia group. The fracture pattern was different. The tested groups demonstrated clinically acceptable fracture load values. Monolithic zirconia solves the chipping problem.

Statement of problem: Evidence is limited on the efficacy of zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses. Objective: To carry out a literature review of the behavior of zirconium oxide dental restorations. Material and Methods: This literature review searched the Pubmed, Scopus, Medline and Cochrane Library databases using key search words “zirconium oxide,” “zirconia,” “non-metal restorations,” “ceramic oxides,” “veneering ceramic,” “zirconia-based fixed dental prostheses”. Both in vivo and in vitro studies into zirconia-based prosthodontic restoration behavior were included. Results: Clinical studies have revealed a high rate of fracture for porcelain-veneered zirconia-based restorations that varies between 6% and 15% over a 3- to 5-year period, while for ceramo-metallic restorations the fracture rate ranges between 4 and 10% over ten years. These results provoke uncertainty as to the long-term prognosis for this material in the oral medium. The cause of veneering porcelain fractures is unknown but hypothetically they could be associated with bond failure between the veneer material and the zirconia sub-structure. Key words:Veneering ceramic, zirconia-based ceramic restoration, crown, zirconia, tooth-supported fixed prosthesis.

BackgroundTo assess the influence of the crestal or subcrestal placement of implants upon peri-implant bone loss over 12 months of follow-up.Material and MethodsTwenty-six patients with a single hopeless tooth were recruited in the Oral Surgery Unit (Valencia University, Valencia, Spain). The patients were randomized into two treatment groups: group A (implants placed at crestal level) or group B (implants placed at subcrestal level). Control visits were conducted by a trained clinician at the time of implant placement and 12 months after loading. A previously established standard protocol was used to compile general data on all patients (sex and age, implant length and diameter, and brushing frequency). Implant success rate, peri-implant bone loss and the treatment of the exposed implant surface were studied. The level of statistical significance was defined as 5% (α=0.05).ResultsTwenty-three patients (8 males and 15 females, mean age 49.8±11.6 years, range 28-75 years) were included in the final data analyses, while three were excluded. All the included subjects were nonsmokers with a brushing frequency of up to twice a day in 85.7% of the cases. The 23 implants comprised 10 crestal implants and 13 subcrestal implants. After implant placement, the mean bone position with respect to the implant platform in group A was 0.0 mm versus 2.16±0.88 mm in group B. After 12 months of follow-up, the mean bone positions were -0.06±1.11 mm and 0.95±1.50 mm, respectively - this representing a bone loss of 0.06±1.11 mm in the case of the crestal implants and of 1.22±1.06 mm in the case of the subcrestal implants (p=0.014). Four crestal implants and 5 subcrestal implants presented peri-implant bone levels below the platform, leaving a mean exposed treated surface of 1.13 mm and 0.57 mm, respectively. The implant osseointegration success rate at 12 months was 100% in both groups.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, bone loss was found to be greater in the case of the subcrestal implants, though from the clinical perspective these implants presented bone levels above the implant platform after 12 months of follow-up. Key words:Immediate implants, tooth extraction, dental implants, single-tooth, crestal bone, placement level.