Purpose: To evaluate the discrepancy between the diagnostic wax-up and the resulting direct veneers using different matrices. Materials and method: A total of 48 identical misaligned models, 12 wax-up models and one ‘every other tooth’ wax-up model were 3D printed. Group 1: Transparent silicone matrices with holes for the injection of the flowable composite. Group 2: The same procedure as group 1, but the first three teeth were restored using the matrix constructed from the ‘every other tooth’ wax-up model. Group 3: Transparent silicone matrices cut for each tooth and preheated resin composite. Group 4: The same procedure as group 3, but the loaded matrix was placed first in the clear plastic tray, which was used for the matrix’s fabrication. Group 5: Wax-up models (control group). Scans from the veneers were superimposed with the scans from the wax-up and compared using the Patient Monitoring software. Measurements were made at the incisal, middle and cervical third. Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn post-hoc test (p < 0.05) were used to analyze the results. Results: No statistically significant differences were found between groups 1 and 2 and the control. Group 3 was different from the control in the incisal and middle third, and group 4 was different in the cervical third. Conclusions: (1) Use of one or two matrices and the injection of flowable composite were accurate techniques. (2) Use of a matrix for each tooth combined with a pre-heated composite was the most inaccurate technique, but the use of the clear tray in combination with the matrix improved the accuracy.

No abstract

Background: Although the need and significance of keratinized tissue around dental implants is a controversial issue, it is certain that the attached gingiva provides increased resistance of the periodontium to external injury, contributes to the stabilization of the gingival margin position and aids in the dissipation of physiological forces that are exerted by the muscular fibers of the alveolar mucosa on the gingival tissues. For many clinicians, a keratinized gingival band around implant restorations is routinely provided, in order to facilitate plaque control and hence reduce the incidence of plaque-related periimplant disease. Many surgical techniques have been utilized to augment gingival tissue dimensions.Aim/Hypothesis: The purpose of this poster is to present a clinical case where a free gingival graft was performed to increase the width of keratinized gingiva around two implants, as well as to display its 10 years follow-up examination.Material and methods: A female 56 years old was referred to our clinic for implant placement and tissue improvement. The maxillary left premolars were extracted, because of poor prognosis and it was decided to be rehabilitated with dental implants. Due to the fact that the amount of keratinized tissue over the edentulous ridge was minimal, a free gingival graft (FGG) was performed.Results: Results showed the presence of 3-4 mm of keratinized tissue around the healing abutments. Although some shrinkage has taken place, the 10-year follow-up examination of the patient demonstrated that the width of keratinized gingiva remains stable around both implants. Conclusion and clinical implications:In spite of the observation that the lack of keratinized tissue may not influence implant survival, the careful management of the amount of soft tissue around implants is considered essential, as it facilitates plaque control. The use of FGG for augmentation of keratinized tissue width has been reported to be a predictable and effective method with sufficient long term results.