Comparison of the accuracy between full-arch digital scans and scannable impression materials: an in vitro study

Grande, Francesco Dal; Celeghin, Giordano; Gallinaro, Federica; Mobilio, Nicola; Catapano, Santo

doi:10.23736/s2724-6329.23.04766-6

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In conclusion, research on different implant designs as well as new materials and protocols is consistently advancing [41][42][43][44]. To the authors' knowledge, the present article represents the first study reporting data on the comparison between BL and TL implants with a convergent collar in immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Comparison between Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Implants in Immediate-Loading Full-Arch Rehabilitations: A Retrospective Multi-Center 1-Year Follow-Up Study

Pera,

Carossa,

Bagnasco

et al. 2023

Prosthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of the present retrospective multi-center study was to analyze the outcomes of bone-level (BL) implants and tissue-level (TL) implants in immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitations. Patients who were previously rehabilitated with full-arch immediate-loading rehabilitations with either BL or TL implants were considered. Data regarding implant survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), peri-implant probing depth (PPD), plaque index (PI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded, and the 1-year follow-up data were statistically analyzed between the two groups. In total, 38 patients were evaluated for a total implant number of 156 (n = 80 TL implants and n = 76 BL implants). An implant survival rate of 97.37% was recoded for the BL group while an implant survival rate of 100% was noted for the TL group. A total MBL of 1.324 ± 0.64 mm was recorded for BL implants, while a total MBL of 1.194 ± 0.30 mm was recorded for TL implants. A statistically significant difference was highlighted regarding MBL at the mesial aspect (p = 0.01552) of the implants, with BL implants presenting with higher MBL. Within the range of acceptable healthy values, a statistically significant difference was also highlighted regarding BOP (p < 0.00001), with TL implants presenting higher values. No statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was recorded for any of the other variables analyzed. Within the limitations of the present retrospective study, both TL and BL implants seem to provide good clinical outcomes after a 12-month observational period when employed in immediate-loading full-arch rehabilitation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Comparison between Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Implants in Immediate-Loading Full-Arch Rehabilitations: A Retrospective Multi-Center 1-Year Follow-Up Study

Pera,

Carossa,

Bagnasco

et al. 2023

Prosthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Cagna,

Donovan,

McKee

et al. 2024

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elastomeric impression materials used in modern orthopedic dentistry

Bordina,

Lopina,

Andreev

2024

Russian Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article presents a review of elastomeric impression materials used in orthopedic dentistry at the present time. As is known, the elastomer group is divided into silicone, polyester, thiocol (polysulfide) materials. Silicone impression materials are characterized by wide application in orthopedic dentistry. The structural basis of silicone materials is polymethylsiloxane with active terminal hydroxyl groups. Polyester impression materials are complexes consisting of two pastes the main and the catalyst. The main paste contains low-molecular-weight polyester with terminal ethylenimine groups, as well as fillers such as colloidal silicon oxide and plasticizers. The catalyst paste contains aromatic ether of sulfonic acid. When these two pastes are mixed, ionic (cationic) polymerization will occur, starting with the formation of a primary alkyl radical, then the ethylenimine ring opens, followed by the growth of macromolecular chains and their crosslinking. Polysulfide are available in the form of two pastes, the main and the catalyst, of different colors, which are mixed immediately before performing the work. The main paste contains polysulfide or mercaptan rubber, and the catalyst paste contains an oxidizer. It should be noted that lead oxide is most often used as an oxidizer. The resulting polymer does not have a stereoregular structure, which causes its stickiness. It is technologically very difficult to obtain a polymer with a stereoregular structure. Having carried out a theoretical comparison of the listed types of elastomeric impression materials according to their properties, chemical composition, advantages and disadvantages, it is possible to distinguish polyester and polysulfide impression materials as more advanced, and silicone have a large number of disadvantages, but are often used in dentistry due to the presence of domestic representatives and relatively low cost.

show abstract

Comparison of the accuracy between full-arch digital scans and scannable impression materials: an in vitro study

Cited by 3 publications

References 48 publications

Comparison between Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Implants in Immediate-Loading Full-Arch Rehabilitations: A Retrospective Multi-Center 1-Year Follow-Up Study

Comparison between Bone-Level and Tissue-Level Implants in Immediate-Loading Full-Arch Rehabilitations: A Retrospective Multi-Center 1-Year Follow-Up Study

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

Elastomeric impression materials used in modern orthopedic dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About