The pink and white aesthetics of a new zirconia implant

Zirconia implants can offer a good alternative to titanium implants. Due to their specific material properties, they have the potential for a more appealing aesthetic result, which can be particularly important in the anterior zone. In the present study, the pink and white aesthetics of immediately placed zirconia implants in the anterior maxillary zone in 20 patients were assessed on the basis of Pink and White Esthetic Scores (PES and WES). To this end, two clinical photographs were compared: one taken immediately after placement of the permanent crown (mean PES = 12.8; mean WES = 8.5) and the other one taken at a later time (mean PES = 12.8; mean WES = 8.6). No statistically significant difference was found between the two moments. Volunteers found it difficult to correctly identify the implant among the other front teeth. Patients completed a questionnaire regarding the aesthetics of the pink and white implant and they graded the final result with an 8.5 score on a point scale of 0 to 10. The aesthetic appearance of a zirconia implant is excellent and stable over time. Patients are generally satisfied with the result

Pink and White Esthetics of a New Zirconia Implant:A 6-Month to 8-Year Follow-Up

The aim of this study was to analyze changes in pink and white esthetics in the anterior zone through evaluation of an immediately placed zirconia implant using the Pink and White Esthetic Scores (PES and WES) in 20 patients. Two clinical photographs were compared: one taken directly after placement of the permanent crown (mean PES = 12.8; mean WES = 8.5) and the other taken at a later time (mean PES = 12.8; mean WES = 8.6; not significant). Volunteers found it difficult to correctly identify the implant. Patients completed a questionnaire regarding the pink and white implant esthetics. A mean outcome of 8.5 on a point scale of 0 to 10 was found. The esthetic appearance of a restored zirconia implant is excellent and stable over time. Patients are generally satisfied with the result

TACTICS FOR TEMPORARY USES OF BUILDINGS AND SPACES IN ARCHITECTURE. TYPOLOGY AND SOCIOCULTURAL VALUE / LAIKINOJO PASTATŲ IR ERDVIŲ NAUDOJIMO TAKTIKA ARCHITEKTŪROJE. TIPOLOGIZACIJA IR SOCIOKULTŪRINĖ VERTĖ

The article is aimed at discussing preconditions for the appearance, scope and spread of adapting temporary functions and uses in buildings and spaces and at disclosing the essential features of the phenomenon. The paper considers that the applied tactics of temporary uses provide broader experimentation and more rapid technological innovation possibilities as well as help with understanding the needs of local communities and avoiding some bureaucratic approval procedures for urban planners, architects and activists. By stressing temporariness in contrast to the conventional durability of architecture, attempts on typologizing different tactics of temporary uses and disclosing their experimental, social and sociocultural role and value are made. Santrauka  Straipsnio tikslas – aptarti laikinųjų funkcijų ir panaudų pritaikymo pastatams ir erdvėms atsiradimo priežastis, mastą, paplitimą bei aptarti esminius šio reiškinio bruožus. Pabrėžiama, kad taikoma laikinojo naudojimo taktika urbanistams, architektams, aktyvistams suteikia platesnių galimybių eksperimentuoti ir greičiau išbandyti naujas technologijas, prisitaikyti prie bendruomenių poreikių, išvengti dalies biurokratinių derinimo procedūrų. Pabrėžiant laikinumą kaip kontrastą įprastiniam architektūros ilgaamžiškumui, siekiama įvairią laikinojo naudojimo taktiką tipologizuoti, atskleisti eksperimentinį, visuomeninį ir sociokultūrinį vaidmenį bei vertę. Raktiniai žodžiai: laikinasis naudojimas, laikinosios funkcijos, laikinoji architektūra, eksperimentas, sociokultūrinė vertė

Temporariness in architectural regeneration

The previous chapters have considered regeneration as a long term investment in an area through securing the future of buildings and places of architectural and communal significance. This chapter expounds the temporal dimension of regeneration and specifically focuses on short term or time bound interventions, considering their longer term implications for architectural regeneration in the context of the economic and social sustainability of places. Temporary structures have always been a fixture of urban and rural places, allowing spaces to be used for different functions, such as weekly markets or seasonal festivals. In rural areas temporary structures provide accommodation for seasonal agricultural workers, while entire towns are temporarily constructed to house pilgrims (Mehrotra and Vera 2015). In many parts of the world, temporary street vendors contribute to diversification of the retail offer and activate public spaces in the urban realm. There are also a host of other temporary activities that combine the need for an activity or use with a space that is permanently or temporarily redundant and vacant. These types of temporary interventions, some of which are trendily referred to as ‘pop-ups’ are emerging as a recognised component in the process of urban regeneration in the UK and across Europe (Bishop and Williams 2012; St Hill 2015). Pop-up architecture has become a regular thematic focus of design events, including the Venice Architecture Biennale since 2016. The trend is epitomised by images of re-purposed shipping containers, street food outlets and other functions that are prefixed with the word ‘pop-up’ (St Hill 2015). Often initiated by grass roots movements and/or young entrepreneurs, pop-ups generally involve the temporary use of a redundant space for a commercial, semi-commercial or charitable/community function. Temporary interventions come in multitudes of size, shape and duration and can be characterised by their function, type of space they occupy, intended purpose, instigators or duration and longevity. Temporary, locally initiated (and sourced) interventions are often viewed as a commitment to a locality. From an urbanism perspective, they highlight the dynamic nature of the built environment and its accompanying social fabric, where change and innovation are inseparably incorporated into everyday rhythms of daily life. Temporary interventions are being actively encouraged as part of urban regeneration in the spirit of co-creation, a shared activity of place making between planners and users (Fernandez 2015). Nonetheless, temporary activities, especially those with commercial purpose, can spearhead new opportunities but also represent conditions of precarity. While the flexible nature of a temporary venture can support the development of new products and services and test their viability, temporality can also be linked to the hand-to-mouth nature of the less permanent business model. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the characteristics and implications of a growing trend of temporary and short term approaches being adopted in architectural regeneration. In doing so the chapter will explore the condition of temporariness and its implications for the urban environment, evaluate the roles various actors take on in the processes of temporary urbanism, and reflect on the physical, socio-economic, political and cultural implications in the context of architectural regeneration