Hard photon production rate of a quark-gluon plasma at finite quark chemical potential

We compute the photon production rate of a quark-gluon plasma (QGP) at finite quark chemical potential $\mu$ using the Braaten-Pisarski method, thus continuing the work of Kapusta, Lichard, and Seibert who did the calculation for $\mu =0$.Comment: 9 pages, revtex, no figures, error in soft part corrected, figures available at ftp://theorie.physik.uni-giessen.de/usr/users/ftp/photon

Damping Rate of a Scalar Particle in Hot Scalar QED

In contrast to the damping of partons in a quark-gluon plasma, the damping of a scalar particle in a hot scalar QED plasma can be calculated to leading order for the whole momentum range using the Braaten-Pisarski method. In this way the evolution of the logarithmic infrared singularity caused by the exchange of a transverse photon from soft to hard momenta can be studied.Comment: 10 pages, uuencoded postscript file with 6 figure

Short communication: Cemented implant reconstructions are associated with less marginal bone loss than screw-retained reconstructions at 3 and 5 years of loading

OBJECTIVES To analyse whether there is a difference in marginal bone levels (MBL) and the respective changes between cemented and screw-retained reconstructions at 3 and 5 years of loading. METHODS Radiographic data from 14 prospective multicentre clinical trials following implant loading with fixed cemented (CEM) or screw-retained (SCREW) reconstructions with a 3- to 5-year follow-up were retrieved from a database. MBL and MBL changes were assessed at initiation of implant loading (BL), at 3 (FU-3) and 5 years (FU-5) thereafter. The presence of peri-implantitis was also determined. RESULTS Data from 1,672 implants at BL, 1,565 implants at FU-3 and 1,109 implants at FU-5 were available. The mean MBL amounted to 0.57 mm (SD 0.87) at BL, 0.55 mm (SD 0.86) at FU-3 and 0.65 mm (SD 1.18) at FU-5. At FU-3, the mean MBL was 0.44 mm (SD 0.65) in group CEM and 0.63 mm (SD 0.99) in group SCREW showing a significant difference between the groups (intergroup <0.05). At FU-5, the mean MBL was 0.42 mm (SD 0.77) in CEM and 0.80 mm (SD 1.37) in SCREW, again with significant differences between both groups (p < .05). MBL changes between BL and FU-3 amounted to 0.11 mm (SD 1.02) (bone loss) in SCREW and -0.17 mm (SD 1.03) (bone gain) in CEM. Similarly, mean MBL changes from BL to FU-5 amounted to 0.23 mm (SD 1.31) (bone loss) in SCREW and -0.26 mm (SD 1.27) (bone gain) in CEM. The prevalence of peri-implantitis amounted to 6.9% in CEM and 5.6% in group SCREW (intergroup p = .29063) at FU-3. At FU-5, peri-implantitis amounted to 4.6% in CEM and 6.2% in group SCREW (intergroup p = .28242). CONCLUSION Cemented implant reconstructions compared with screw-retained reconstructions revealed higher marginal bone levels and similar rates of peri-implantitis during 5 years. The difference in MBL and the respective changes between the two groups, however, appear to be clinically negligible

Cemented vs screw-retained zirconia-based single implant reconstructions: A 3-year prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES The objective of the present randomized clinical trial was to test whether or not the use of screw-retained all ceramic implant-borne reconstructions results in clinical, technical, and biologic outcomes similar to those obtained with cemented all ceramic reconstructions. The hypothesis was that there is no difference in clinical, technical, and biological parameters between the two types of retention. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-four patients randomly received 20 cemented reconstruction (CR) and 24 screw-retained (SR) all ceramic single crowns on two-piece dental implants with nonmatching implant-abutment junctions. All patients were recalled after crown insertion, at 6 months, 1 year, as well as at 3 years. At these visits, biological and radiographic evaluations were performed. Technical outcomes were assessed using modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria. Data were statistically analyzed with Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS During 3 years of follow-up, eight patients (18.2%) lost the reconstruction due to technical (6 patients, 13.6%, 2 CR and 4 SR group) or biological complications (2 patients, 4.5%, only CR group). Thirty-two subjects with 18 SR and 14 CR reconstructions attended the FU-3Y, whereas four patients (9.1%, 2 SR, 2 CR) were not available (drop-outs). Biological, technical, and radiographic outcomes did not differ significantly between the groups (P > 0.05). One implant (2.3%) was lost in the CR group. One more cemented crown (2.3%) had to be removed because of peri-implant disease. Six patients (13.6%) lost the reconstructions due to a fracture of the zirconia abutment (4 SR, 2 CR). The mean marginal bone level at 3 years was -0.4 mm (-0.5; -0.3) in group SR and - 0.4 mm (-0.6; -0.3) group CR (P = 0.864). CONCLUSIONS At 3 years, CR and SR exhibited similar survival technical, biological and radiographic outcomes. The rate of technical complications was high in both groups

Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison

OBJECTIVE To calculate the precision of the implant analog position in digital models generated from different computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems compared to gypsum models acquired from conventional implant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS In five patients in need of a single implant crown, a within-subject comparison was performed applying four different manufacturing processes for the implant model. Each implant was scanned with three different intraoral scanners: iTero Cadent (ITE), Lava True Definition (LTD), and Trios 3Shape (TRI). All digital implant models were fabricated using the corresponding certified CAD-CAM workflow. In addition, a conventional impression was taken (CON) and a gypsum model fabricated. Three consecutive impressions were acquired with each impression system. Following fabrication, all implant models were scanned. The datasets were aligned by a repeated best-fit algorithm and the precision for the implant analog and the adjacent teeth was measured. The precision served as a measure for reproducibility. RESULTS Mean precision values of the implant analog in the digital models were 57.2 ± 32.6 µm (ITE), 88.6 ± 46.0 µm (TRI), and 176.7 ± 120.4 µm (LTD). Group CON (32.7 ± 11.6 µm) demonstrated a statistically significantly lower mean precision value for the implant position in the implant model as compared to all other groups representing a high reproducibility. The mean precision values for the reference ranged between 31.4 ± 3.5 µm (TRI) and 39.5 ± 16.5 µm (ITE). No statistical significant difference was calculated between the four treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS The conventional implant model represented the greatest reproducibility of the implant position. Digital implant models demonstrated less precision compared to the conventional workflow

Histologic analyses of flapless ridge preservation in sockets with buccal dehiscence defects using two alloplastic bone graft substitutes

OBJECTIVES To investigate whether one of two synthetic bone substitute materials used for ridge preservation in the extraction sockets with buccal dehiscence defects was superior regarding new bone formation and ridge preservation and to compare it to sites left for spontaneous healing. MATERIALS AND METHODS In sixteen dogs, P3 and P4 were hemi-sectioned and the respective distal roots were extracted. Following the preparation of a mucoperiosteal flap without vertical releasing incisions, 50% of the buccal bone was carefully removed. The extraction sites were randomly assigned either to a ridge preservation procedure (alloplastic bone substitute material (two test groups)) or to spontaneous healing (control group). Descriptive histology and histomorphometric analyses were performed at healing times of 4, 8, and 16 weeks. In case of homogeneous variances, the results were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey's post-hoc test. If inhomogeneous, the data was analyzed using Welch-type ANOVA, followed by the Games-Howell post-hoc test. RESULTS The use of bone substitute material led to significantly greater horizontal dimensions amounting to 3.3 mm (SD = 0.67; test 1) and 3.5 mm (SD = 0.72; test 2) compared to spontaneous healing (1.7 mm, SD = 0.23) at 16 weeks of healing (p  0.05). The final ridge profile was more favorable after ridge preservation (p < 0.001) as demonstrated by a loss of 28.8% (spontaneous healing) and an increase in both test groups at 16 weeks (test 1 = 60.5% and test 2 = 31.2%). CONCLUSIONS The use of alloplastic materials rendered greater horizontal dimensions and a more favorable maintenance of the ridge profile. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Alloplastic bone substitute materials can successfully be used for ridge preservation procedures

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of implants placed in autogenous bone grafts and implants placed in native bone: A case-control study with a follow-up of 5-16 years

AIMS To compare the radiographic marginal bone levels of implants placed in sites previously augmented with autogenous bone grafts and implants placed in native bone. Secondary outcomes included: implant survival, periodontal/peri-implant parameters as well as short- and long-term patient-reported outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS The study was designed as a case-control study including 38 patients equally distributed into two groups (previously augmented with autogenous bone blocks [AB] and implants placed in native bone [NB]). In total, 67 implants were placed. Clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complication rates were assessed based on a chart review and at a follow-up examination (≧5 years after implant placement). Nonparametric mixed models were applied for the comparison of the two groups because of the clustered data. The data were analyzed descriptively, and p-values were calculated using nonparametric mixed models to account for the clustered data. RESULTS The mean follow-up time was 10.2 years (range 6-13 years; AB) and 8.3 years (range 5-16 years; NB). One implant was lost in group NB (97.5% survival rate) and none in group AB (100%). Following primary augmentation, six major complications (wound dehiscences, acute pulpitis, intra- and extraoral sensitivity disturbances) were observed at the donor sites. At time of implant placement, only minimal complications occurred and only in group NB. Median marginal bone levels at the follow-up were significantly higher in group NB (1.15; Q1: 0.50 mm/Q3: 1.83 mm) than in group AB (1.58; Q1: 1.01 mm/Q3: 2.40 mm; p = 0.0411). Probing depth, bleeding on probing and recession values were similar in both groups. PROMs revealed high visual analog scale values (i.e., high satisfaction) for both procedures. CONCLUSIONS Dental implants placed in sites augmented with autogenous bone or in native bone revealed healthy peri-implant tissues after 5-16 years. Marginal bone levels were significantly higher for implant placed in native bone. Complications following primary augmentation encompassed every third patient but were mostly transient

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations.

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow

Randomized controlled pilot study assessing efficacy, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes measures of chairside and labside single-tooth restorations

OBJECTIVES To test whether or not a chairside workflow (CHAIR) is similar to a labside workflow (LAB) in terms of efficacy (primary outcome) and efficiency (secondary outcome). MATERIAL AND METHODS Eighteen subjects in need of a single-tooth restoration in the posterior region of the maxilla or mandible were consecutively recruited and randomly assigned to the CHAIR or LAB workflow. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; efficacy) were assessed using a questionnaire with visual analog scale. The white AEsthetic score (WES) was applied to evaluate the AEsthetic outcome objectively. The clinical and laboratory time (efficiency) were recorded. Nonparametric methods were applied for the group comparisons. RESULTS The overall median AEsthetic evaluation after treatment was 10 (interquartile range = IQR: 9.5-10) in group CHAIR and 10 (IQR: 9.5-10) in-group LAB (Mann-Whitney [MW] test p = 1.000). The WES amounted to 4 (IQR: 3-5) (CHAIR) and to 8 (IQR: 7-9) (LAB) (MW test p < 0.0001). The median total working time for the clinician in-group CHAIR was 49.9 min. (IQR: 40.9-63.7) and 41.4 min. (IQR: 37.2-58.2) in-group LAB (MW test p = 0.387). CONCLUSIONS Subjective PROMs of single-tooth supported restorations fabricated in a CHAIR or LAB workflow led to similar scores of patients' satisfaction and a moderate negative correlation for the objective evaluation of the clinician in the LAB workflow. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE PROMs can be considered a key element in the decision-making process for restoring single-tooth restorations. The patients' perception of AEsthetics was similar for the CHAIR or LAB workflows. The additional efforts undertaken with the LAB workflow did not result in a patient benefit when compared to a CHAIR workflow

Soft tissue augmentation with a volume-stable collagen matrix or an autogenous connective tissue graft at implant sites: Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial post implant loading

BACKGROUND Interventions to augment the mucosal thickness around dental implants are indicated to optimize esthetics and maintain peri-implant health. However, there is a lack of clinical data on the long-term performance of soft tissue substitutes, such as volume-stable collagen matrix (VCMX), compared to autogenous grafts, such as subepithelial connective tissue grafts (SCTGs). This randomized controlled trial aimed to assess 5-year data on clinical and radiographic outcomes at implant sites previously augmented with VCMX or SCTG. METHODS Twenty patients were randomly assigned for soft tissue augmentation with VCMX or SCTG at single implant sites. Following abutment connection, final restorations were inserted (baseline; BL) and patients were reexamined up to 5 years (FU-5). Measurements included clinical data, marginal bone levels, mucosal thickness, and ridge contour changes. Nonparametric tests and estimates were applied for the statistical analysis. RESULTS The median buccal mucosal thickness increased by 0.3 mm (Q1: -0.8; Q3: 1.0) in the VCMX group (P = 0.656) and 0.3 mm (Q1: 0.0; Q3: 1.0) in the SCTG group (P = 0.188) between BL and FU-5 (intergroup P = 0.752), while the ridge contour decreased by a median of -0.3 mm (-0.9; -0.1) (P = 0.078) for VCMX and -0.3 mm (-0.4; -0.2) (P = 0.039) for SCTG (intergroup P = 0.817). Peri-implant health was maintained in both groups with stable clinical and radiographic outcomes and without significant differences between the treatments. CONCLUSION Despite the limited power and considerable dropout rate in the present study, soft tissue augmentation at implant sites with either VCMX or SCTG resulted in similar stable peri-implant tissues, favorable esthetics, and clinically negligible contour changes at 5 years post loading