From porcelain-fused-to-metal to zirconia: clinical and experimental considerations.

The goal of the current publication is to provide a comprehensive literature review on the topic of dental implant materials. The following paper focuses on conventional titanium implants and more recently introduced and increasingly popular zirconia implants. Major subtopics include the material science and the clinical considerations involving both implant materials and the influence of their physical properties on the treatment outcome. Titanium remains the gold standard for the fabrication of oral implants, even though sensitivity does occur, though its clinical relevance is not yet clear. Zirconia implants may prove to be promising in the future; however, further in vitro and well-designed in vivo clinical studies are needed before such a recommendation can be made. Special considerations and technical experience are needed when dealing with zirconia implants to minimize the incidence of mechanical failure.

https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2531883/164424_484372.pdf

A Critical Review of Dental Implant Materials with an Emphasis on Titanium versus Zirconia

https://www.journalofprosthodonticresearch.com/article/S1883-1958(16)00009-8/pdf

Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation

Ceramic dental biomaterials and CAD/CAM technology: state of the art.

3D Printed Versus Conventionally Cured Provisional Crown and Bridge Dental Materials

This study evaluated the effect of a modified tray design on the accuracy of implant impressions in comparison with the non-splinted and splinted impression techniques. Two titanium frameworks were produced to fit two parallel implants and two divergent implants with a 15o angle. According to the frameworks employed, two acrylic resin master models were fabricated. For each model, 10 impressions were taken with every technique. The maximum framework principal strain was calculated for every generated cast. For the parallel implant model, the strains of the non-splinted (118.4 μe), splinted (89.0 μe), and modified tray design impression (49.4 μe) techniques were statistically similar (P = 0.16). For the divergent implant model, all the impression techniques showed a considerably higher strain than the parallel implant model. The splinted (287.0 μe) and the modified (262.9 μe) tray design impression techniques showed similar strains for the divergent implant model, which were significantly less than the strains for the non-splinted impression (518.0 μe) technique (P < 0.05). Therefore, for two parallel implants, all the impression techniques exhibited similar accuracy. When angulation existed between the implants, the splinted and the modified tray design impression techniques were more accurate than the non-splinted impression technique.

Effect of modified tray design on accuracy of different impression techniques for parallel and divergent implants.

Influence of the application of a pre-sintered surface augmentation on zirconia and lithium disilicate bonding using an adhesive composite resin cement.

Correct implant placement is necessary for satisfactory implant restoration. Therefore, the use of surgical guide is recommended. This study evaluated the accuracy of implant placement in posterior edentulous areas with different levels of tooth-support by novice clinicians according to fully-guided (FG), pilot-guided (PG), and freehand (FH) placement protocols. A mandibular model with missing first molars was designed. On one side, the model had a bound edentulous area (BEA), and on the other side, a free end edentulous area (FEA). Fourteen clinicians new to implant dentistry participated in the study, and each clinician inserted an implant in the BEA and FEA sites for every placement protocol. Angle, vertical and maximum horizontal platform and apex deviations were measured. The FG placement was more accurate than the PG and FH placements. This was significant for BEA angle deviation, BEA and FEA maximum horizontal platform deviations, and BEA maximum horizontal apex deviation. The PG placement was significantly more accurate than the FH placement for BEA and FEA maximum horizontal platform deviations. FG shows significantly greater angle, maximum horizontal platform and maximum horizontal apex deviations at FEA than BEA. This can be attributed to reduced guide support and the possibility of guide displacement during surgery.

Jaafar Abduo

Papers

Effect of modified tray design on accuracy of different impression techniques for parallel and divergent implants.

Influence of the application of a pre-sintered surface augmentation on zirconia and lithium disilicate bonding using an adhesive composite resin cement.

Accuracy of Static Computer- Assisted Implant Placement in Posterior Edentulous Areas with Different Levels of Tooth- Support by Novice Clinicians.

Precision ofDigital Prosthodontic Planningfor Oral Rehabilitation

Influence of fixed prosthodontic treatment on occlusal contacts in centric occlusion: a preliminary study.