No abstract

To elucidate the effects of enamel matrix derivative (EMD: Emdogain) on bone regeneration in rat femurs after drill-hole injury, defects in bone were filled with either EMD or its carrier, PGA, as control. On postoperative days 4 to 28, dissected femurs were examined by means of various morphological approaches. In both experimental groups, formation of trabecular bone, which was immunostained for bone sialoproteins (BSP), had occurred in the medullary cavities at cylindrical bone defects on Day 7 postoperatively. Cuboidal osteoblasts were clearly observed on these newly-formed BSP-positive bone trabeculae. On Days 7 and 14, many multinucleated giant cells, which strongly expressed cathepsin K, had appeared on these bone trabeculae, indicating active bone remodeling. In these bone trabeculae, Ca and P weight % and Ca/P ratio were similar to those of cortical bone, and there was no significant difference between the PGA-and EMD-applied groups. Bone volume fraction of newly-formed bone trabeculae on Day 7 postoperatively was significantly higher in the EMD-applied group than in the PGA-applied controls. Because of active bone remodeling and the marked decrease of bone volume, on Days 14 and 28 postoperatively, however, there was no longer a significant difference in trabecular bone volume fraction between the experimental groups. Our results suggest that EMD possesses an osteo-promotive effect on bone and medullary regeneration during wound healing of injured long bones. Anat Rec 264: 438 -446, 2001.

No abstract

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the precision of digital implant impressions in comparison with conventional impressions and assess the impact of the scanning range on precision.Materials and MethodsAn edentulous maxilla model with six implants was scanned with four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and a dental laboratory scanner five times each, and stereolithography (STL) data were generated. A conventional silicone impression was made, and a model was fabricated, which was scanned using the laboratory scanner. This procedure was also repeated five times. Nine different ranges of interest (ROIs) were defined, and the average discrepancies of the measurement points between each pair of STL images out of five for each ROI were calculated. The effects of “impression method” and “ROI” on precision, as evaluated by the averaged discrepancy, were tested by two‐way analysis of variance (p < .05).ResultsThe effects of “impression methods” and “ROI” and their interactions were statistically significant. The discrepancies in the scanned datasets of the dental laboratory scanner were significantly lower than those in the other impression methods. The discrepancies of the IOSs were comparable with those of the laboratory scanner when the ROI was limited, however; the discrepancies deteriorated when the ROI expanded across the arch, while those of the laboratory scanner remained stable irrespective of the ROI.ConclusionsWithin the limitation of this in vitro study, digital implant impressions by IOSs may show clinically acceptable precision when the scan range is limited, such as in 3‐unit superstructure supported by two implants.

PurposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the inter-operator reproducibility of three-dimensional (3D) images of teeth captured by a digital impression technique to a conventional impression technique in vivo.Materials and methodsTwelve participants with complete natural dentition were included in this study. A digital impression of the mandibular molars of these participants was made by two operators with different levels of clinical experience, 3 or 16 years, using an intra-oral scanner (Lava COS, 3M ESPE). A silicone impression also was made by the same operators using the double mix impression technique (Imprint3, 3M ESPE). Stereolithography (STL) data were directly exported from the Lava COS system, while STL data of a plaster model made from silicone impression were captured by a three-dimensional (3D) laboratory scanner (D810, 3shape). The STL datasets recorded by two different operators were compared using 3D evaluation software and superimposed using the best-fit-algorithm method (least-squares method, PolyWorks, InnovMetric Software) for each impression technique. Inter-operator reproducibility as evaluated by average discrepancies of corresponding 3D data was compared between the two techniques (Wilcoxon signed-rank test).ResultsThe visual inspection of superimposed datasets revealed that discrepancies between repeated digital impression were smaller than observed with silicone impression. Confirmation was forthcoming from statistical analysis revealing significantly smaller average inter-operator reproducibility using a digital impression technique (0.014± 0.02 mm) than when using a conventional impression technique (0.023 ± 0.01 mm).ConclusionThe results of this in vivo study suggest that inter-operator reproducibility with a digital impression technique may be better than that of a conventional impression technique and is independent of the clinical experience of the operator.