THE ADVANTAGES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DIGITAL FLOW IN THE WORKING TIME MANAGEMENT OF DENTAL PROSTHESES RESTORATIONS

The aim of the study is to perform a comparison between conventional impression versus intraoral and extraoral scanning, plaster models compared to virtual and printed models, in terms of working time and fidelity. Material and method: The study evaluates two groups of practitioners: 30 dentists and 30 dental technicians, regarding registration and reproduction of the prosthetic field. The time required to perform the operations was evaluated in relation to variables that can influence the final results. Conventional impressions were monophasic and biphasic. In the digital flow, an intraoral scanner (Medit, i700) and a laboratory scanner (Medit T310) were used. Also, a printing machine (Elegoo Saturn) was used to print the models. Results and discussions: The average time allocated for conventional impressions is between 8min and 20sec and 25min and 40sec. The scanning time varied between 5 min 30 sec and 12 min 40 sec. Conclusions: The digital impression requires less working time compared to the conventional one, the latter cannot be completely abandoned, at least in terms of mobile prostheses. The fidelity of the prosthodontic field reproduction influences the adaptation of the restorations

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Reactogenicity among Healthcare Workers: Results from an Active Survey in a Pediatric Hospital from Bucharest, January–February 2021

In Romania, health and social workers were prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination. We aimed to describe the vaccine adverse events identified through an active survey (using an electronic questionnaire) conducted among the staff of a pediatric hospital from Bucharest, vaccinated with the mRNA Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. Data on the frequency and duration of adverse events were collected and analyzed using Microsoft Excel, Epi Info, and MedCalc. The questionnaire was sent to 426 persons. The participation rate was 81.2% after 1st dose and 63.8% after the 2nd dose. Overall, 81.9% were women, median age 42 (IQR 32–50 years). A total of 48 respondents (14.8%) reported no adverse event after the 1st dose and 35 (14.1) after the 2nd dose. No anaphylaxis was reported. The most frequent adverse event was pain at injection site, being reported by 261 responders (80.3%) after 1st dose and 187 (75.1%) after 2nd dose. Fatigue and headache were reported significantly less frequently in our study compared with data provided by the vaccine manufacturer. The current study has shown higher local reactogenicity after the first dose of the vaccine and higher systemic reactogenicity after the second dose. This real-world knowledge of the reactogenicity and safety profile may increase the vaccine’s acceptance rate among healthcare workers

TIME ASSESSMENT IN CLASSICAL VS DIGITAL IMPRESSIONS

Aim of the study is an ex-vivo time analysis comparing conventional and digital impression methods for prosthodontic restorations. Insights gleaned from ex-vivo experiments hold promise for enhancing existing practices. This primary experimental investigation will prioritize the consideration of both clinician and patient requirements when determining treatment modalities. Materials and Method: The study involved five stages: preparing an artificial arch, measuring time for gingival retraction with cords and paste, assessing time for conventional and digital impressions, and data analysis. A Frasaco maxillary model with 16 teeth was utilized, 14 prepared using cylindrical-conical burs. Gingival retraction cords and paste were applied, and impression times were recorded for both conventional and digital methods. Results and Discussions: Time analyses showed varying durations for gingival retraction techniques, with the paste method significantly faster than retraction cords. Digital impressions exhibited shorter scanning times compared to conventional methods, especially for fewer number of teeth. However, conventional two-step impressions took longer but provided better cervical area fidelity. This study highlighted the efficiency of digital scanning, offering shorter impression times and reduced patient discomfort. Research also emphasized the differences between retraction methods, with varied effects on periodontal tissues and impression quality. Comparison studies indicated benefits and challenges associated with different impression techniques. Conclusion: The findings underscored the need for practitioners to choose impression methods based on time efficiency and patient needs. Optical scanning proved quickest for fewer teeth, while retraction cord and paste methods require careful consideration. While the study didn’t explore gingival tissue effects, it highlighted crucial considerations for impression materials and chemical solutions. These insights offer practitioners guidance in selecting optimal techniques for effective and efficient dental procedures

Research and Science Today Supplement No. 1/2014

RESEARCH AND SCIENCE TODAY is a biannual science journal established in 2011. The journal is an informational platform that publishes assessment articles and the results of various scientific research carried out by academics. We provide the authors with the opportunity to create and/or perfect their science writing skills. Thus, each issue of the journal (two per year and at least two supplements) will contain professional articles from any academic field, authored by domestic and international academics. The goal of this journal is to pass on relevant information to undergraduate, graduate, and post-graduate students as well as to fellow academics and researchers; the topics covered are unlimited, considering its multi-disciplinary profile. Regarding the national and international visibility of Research and Science Today, it is indexed in over 30 international databases (IDB) and is present in over 200 online libraries and catalogues; therefore, anybody can easily consult the articles featured in each issue by accessing the databases or simply the website