Implant-Supported Screw-Retained Vs Cemented Single Crown Fabricated By CAD / CAM Technology: A Clinical Case Report

Vlahova, Angelina; Hadzhigaev, Viktor; ZlatinaTomova,; RadaKazakova,; Zlatev, Stefan; Internationals, Ommega

doi:10.15436/2379-1705.18.1685

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…8). The preliminary results reported in this article support the findings of studies published by Lanis et al (2015), Pozzi et al (2016), and Vlahova et al (2017and 2018 in that, a combination of digital surface scanners and CT's facilitates the predictability of the results in guided implant surgery.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 87%

Clinically Evaluated Accuracy of Single Guided Implantations With Two Different Systems – Preliminary Results

Vlahova

Zlatev

Pavlov

et al. 2021

PMP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Guided single implant placement ensures an optimal implant position, enables in-surgery immediate loading, and creates a predisposition for predictable treatment results. Aim: This article aims to present the surgical and loading protocols and assess the accuracy of two guided implant systems. Materials and methods: Ten patients missing a single molar were included. The semi-guided procedures with the two implant systems – AB Dental and Alpha Bio-Tec, were randomly assigned to each participant. The computer-assisted planning was performed with Implant Studio (3Shape, Denmark). Surgical guides and long-term, temporary, screw-retained restorations were virtually generated within the 3Shape system. Surgical appliances were printed from SG resin (Formlabs, USA), and crowns were milled from Telio CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Lichtenstein). Planning accuracy was evaluated based on the crown’s fit and relation to the adjacent teeth and antagonists. Results and discussion: The patients included for preliminary analysis (6 female and 4 male) were with a mean age of 33.42. The youngest was 24, and the oldest 49 years old. There were no surgical and technical complications for the period of evaluation, which ranged from 1 to 3 months. The crown’s fit was excellent in 8 cases. In two cases, minor adjustments were necessary – 1 in relation to the antagonists and 1 to the adjacent teeth. In one case, a healing screw was placed for 48 hours to facilitate adequate soft-tissue space for the Ti-base. Conclusion: The preliminary results presented in this report suggest that the clinical and laboratory protocols used for guided implantation and immediate loading are highly efficient.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 87%

Clinically Evaluated Accuracy of Single Guided Implantations With Two Different Systems – Preliminary Results

Vlahova

Zlatev

Pavlov

et al. 2021

PMP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies between subtractive CAD/CAM materials for provisional non-permanent prosthodontics (PNPCs) and conventional materials, Jain et al concluded that 3D-printed provisional crowns and materials for removable prosthetics could be used as an alternative to long-term conventional and CAD/CAM subtractive materials [40,41].…”

Section: Summary Of the Main Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Flexural Strength Variation in Polymeric Materials for Provisional Fixed Prosthetic Structures: Comparative Analysis with and without Reinforcement through Laboratory Experimentation and Statistical Evaluation

Dimova-Gabrovska,

Uzunov,

Gusiyska

et al. 2024

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Provisional fixed partial dentures represent a critical phase in dental treatment, necessitating heightened mechanical durability, particularly in comprehensive and extended treatment plans. Strengthening these structures with various reinforcing materials offers a method to enhance their resilience. Utilizing a three-point testing methodology on standardized trial specimens allows for a comparative assessment of various materials and reinforcement techniques for pre-prosthetic applications. This study aims to validate and assess the significance of integrating different reinforcing materials into standardized test bodies. The study focuses on test specimens comprising three types of unreinforced laboratory and clinical polymers for provisional constructions (n = 6)—heat-cured PMMA (Superpont C+B, Spofa Dental, Czech Republic), CAD-CAM prefabricated PMMA (DD temp MED, Dental Direkt, Germany), CAD-CAM printing resin (Temporary CB Resin, FormLabs, USA), self-polymerizing PEMA (DENTALON plus, Kulzer, Germany), light-polymerizing composite (Revotek LC, GC, Japan), and dual-polymerizing composite (TempSpan, Pentron, USA). Additionally, laboratory polymers are evaluated in groups with five types of reinforcing filaments (n = 15)—Glass Fiber (Fiber Splint One-Layer, Polydentia, Switzerland), Polyethylene thread (Ribbond Regular 4.0 mm, Ribbond Inc., USA), triple-stranded chrome-cobalt wire for splinting 015″ (Leone S.p.a., Italy), Aesthetic ligature wire 012″ (Leone S.p.a., Italy), and Glass Fiber coated with light-cured composite 8.5 × 0.2 mm (Interlig, Angelus, Brazil). Analysis of the data using Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) reveals that the experimental bodies, produced via the subtractive digital method using PMMA (DD temp MED, Dental Direkt GmbH, Germany) as the polymer and glass filaments as the reinforcement, exhibit superior mechanical properties, particularly when pre-wetted with Interlig liquid composite (Angelus, Brazil).

show abstract

Implant-Supported Screw-Retained Vs Cemented Single Crown Fabricated By CAD / CAM Technology: A Clinical Case Report

Cited by 2 publications

References 7 publications

Clinically Evaluated Accuracy of Single Guided Implantations With Two Different Systems – Preliminary Results

Clinically Evaluated Accuracy of Single Guided Implantations With Two Different Systems – Preliminary Results

Exploring Flexural Strength Variation in Polymeric Materials for Provisional Fixed Prosthetic Structures: Comparative Analysis with and without Reinforcement through Laboratory Experimentation and Statistical Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About