Development of a clinically relevant index for tooth wear treatment needs

Background: This study aimed to develop a tooth wear classification system that combined the extent, severity, and aesthetic impact of tooth wear and correlated them with the most appropriate clinical management strategy. Methods: Three hundred photographs were used to develop a classification tool that contained four levels of severity and aesthetic impact (0, 1, 2, and 3) in three age groups of patients. Ten examiners assessed and classified the cases using validated forms. Additionally, they selected the recommended treatment modality for each level. The analysis was conducted using a coefficient correlation test. Results: The coefficient correlation for the severity was 0.81, 0.82 in the upper anterior and posterior segments, and 0.85 and 0.77 for the lower anterior and posterior segments, respectively. The aesthetic impact correlation coefficient was 0.84. Examiners had agreed that minor cases required monitoring or simple restorative interventions. The moderate-level cases had variety in the recommended management options depending on the aim of treatment. The severe level cases often required rehabilitation at an increased occlusal vertical dimension. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this preliminary study, a good agreement between the examiners was found using the provided tools. More strict criteria in the classification part of the tool can further improve the examiners’ agreement

Development and comparison of conventional and 3D-printed laboratory models of maxillary defects

Background: Recording accurate impressions from maxillary defects is a critical and challenging stage in the prosthetic rehabilitation of patients following maxillectomy surgery. The aim of this study was to develop and optimize conventional and 3D-printed laboratory models of maxillary defects and to compare conventional and digital impression techniques using these models. Methods: Six different types of maxillary defect models were fabricated. A central palatal defect model was used to compare conventional silicon impressions with digital intra-oral scanning in terms of dimensional accuracy and total time taken to record the defect and produce a laboratory analogue. Results: Digital workflow produced different results than the conventional technique in terms of defect size measurements which were statistically significant (p 0.05). Conclusions: The laboratory models of different maxillary defects developed in this study have the potential to be used to compare conventional and digital workflow in prosthetic treatment procedures

Differences in Mechanical and Physicochemical Properties of Several PTFE Membranes Used in Guided Bone Regeneration

Non-resorbable PTFE membranes are frequently used in dental-guided bone regeneration (GBR). However, there is a lack of detailed comparative studies that define variations among commonly used PTFE membranes in daily dental clinical practice. The aim of this study was to examine differences in physicochemical and mechanical properties of several recent commercial PTFE membranes for dental GBR (CytoplastTM TXT-200, permamem®, NeoGen®, Surgitime, OsseoGuard®-TXT, OsseoGuard®-NTXT). Such differences have been rarely recorded so far, which might be a reason for the varied clinical results. For that reason, we analyzed their surface architecture, chemical composition, tensile strength, Young’s modulus, wettability, roughness, density, thickness and porosity. SEM revealed different microarchitectures among the non-textured membranes; the textured ones had hexagonal indentations and XPS indicated an identical spectral portfolio in all membranes. NeoGen® was determined to be the strongest and OsseoGuard®-TXT was the most elastic. Wettability and roughness were highest for Surgitime but lowest for OsseoGuard®-NTXT. Furthermore, permamem® was the thinnest and NeoGen® was identified as the thickest investigated GBR membrane. The defect volumes and defect volume ratio (%) varied significantly, indicating that permamem® had the least imperfect structure, followed by NeoGen® and then Cytoplast TM TXT-200. These differences may potentially affect the clinical outcomes of dental GBR procedures