Aim:To compare and evaluate few physical properties of epoxy resin, resin-modified gypsum and conventional type-IV gypsum die material. Materials and methods:In the present study, dimensional accuracy, surface detail reproduction and transverse strength of three die materials like epoxy resin (Diemet-E), resin-modified gypsum (Synarock) and conventional type-IV gypsum (Ultrarock) are analyzed. For dimensional accuracy, master die (Bailey's die) is used and calibrations were made with digital microscope. For surface detail reproduction and transverse strength, rectangular stainless steel master die (Duke's die) was used and calibrations were made with Toolmaker's microscope and Instron universal testing machine respectively. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the means and standard deviation for groups of each test. Results:The results of the study showed statistically significant difference among these materials in dimensional accuracy, surface detail reproduction and transverse strength. Conclusion:Epoxy resin exhibited superiority in dimensional accuracy, surface detail reproduction and transverse strength and is nearest to the standards of accurate die material.

Due to anatomical and surgical constrains the implant placement may not be parallel to each other always. Non-parallel implants are subjected to detrimental stresses at implant bone interface. Also depending on type of implant material i.e. titanium or zirconium, stresses tend to vary due to change in physical and mechanical properties. Hence stress analysis at implant bone interface between different parallel and non-parallel implants becomes significant. Evaluation and comparison of stress distribution in the bone around two parallel and non-parallel titanium and zirconium dental implants on axial and non-axial loading supporting three unit fixed prosthesis. Three dimensional finite element models (M1, M2, M3) were made of three differently angulated implants in ANSYS (11.0 Version) software and P4 processor with a speed of 3 GHz and 3 Gb RAM hardware, common for titanium and zirconium implants. Stress around the implants was analyzed on an axial load of 200 N and a non-axial load of 50 N. In both titanium and zirconium implants on axial loading in cortical bone, higher stresses were observed in M3 followed by M2 and M1. On non-axial loading higher stresses were observed in M2, followed by M3 and M1. In both titanium and zirconium implants on axial and non-axial loading in cancellous bone stresses were higher in M3 followed by M2 and M1. Zirconium implants showed lower stresses in cortical bone and higher stresses in cancellous bone compared to titanium implants. Over all Stresses in the bone were more due to titanium implants than zirconium implants. Zirconium implants led to lower peri-implant stresses than titanium implants.

Aim:To compare and evaluate the perceptions of esthetics among dentists and patients regarding the final esthetic outcome of a dental treatment. Background:Esthetics is a matter of perception and is associated with the way different people look at an object. What constitutes esthetic for a particular person may not be acceptable for another. Hence it is subjective in nature. This becomes more obvious during the post-treatment evaluation of esthetics by dentist and the concerned patient. Opinion seldom matches. Hence, the study is a necessary part of the process of understanding the mind of dentist and patient regarding what constitutes esthetics.