Precision of maxillo-mandibular registration with intraoral scanners in vitro

Purpose: To compare the precision of maxillo-mandibular registration and resulting full arch occlusion produced by three intraoral scanners in vitro. Methods: Six dental models (groups A–F) were scanned five times with intraoral scanners (CEREC, TRIOS, PLANMECA), producing both full arch and two buccal maxillo-mandibular scans. Total surface area of contact points (defined as regions within 0.1 mm and all mesh penetrations) was measured, and the distances between four pairs of key points were compared, each two in the posterior and anterior. Results: Total surface area of contact points varied significantly among scanners across all groups. CEREC produced the smallest contact surface areas (5.7–25.3 mm2), while PLANMECA tended to produce the largest areas in each group (22.2–60.2 mm2). Precision of scanners, as measured by the 95% CI range, varied from 0.1–0.9 mm for posterior key points. For anterior key points the 95% CI range was smaller, particularly when multiple posterior teeth were still present (0.04–0.42 mm). With progressive loss of posterior units (groups D–F), differences in the anterior occlusion among scanners became significant in five out of six groups (D–F left canines and D, F right canines, p < 0.05). Conclusions: Maxillo-mandibular registrations from three intraoral scanners created significantly different surface areas of occlusal contact. Posterior occlusions revealed lower precision for all scanners than anterior. CEREC tended towards incorrect posterior open bites, whilst TRIOS was most consistent in reproducing occluding units

Ridge augmentation by applying bioresorbable membranes and deproteinized bovine bone mineral: a report of twelve consecutive cases

OBJECTIVE: Lateral ridge augmentations are traditionally performed using autogenous bone grafts to support membranes for guided bone regeneration (GBR). The bone-harvesting procedure, however, is accompanied by considerable patient morbidity. AIM: The aim of the present study was to test whether or not resorbable membranes and bone substitutes will lead to successful horizontal ridge augmentation allowing implant installation under standard conditions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve patients in need of implant therapy participated in this study. They revealed bone deficits in the areas intended for implant placement. Soft tissue flaps were carefully raised and blocks or particles of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) (Bio-Oss) were placed in the defect area. A collagenous membrane (Bio-Gide) was applied to cover the DBBM and was fixed to the surrounding bone using poly-lactic acid pins. The flaps were sutured to allow for healing by primary intention. RESULTS: All sites in the 12 patients healed uneventfully. No flap dehiscences and no exposures of membranes were observed. Nine to 10 months following augmentation surgery, flaps were raised in order to visualize the outcomes of the augmentation. An integration of the DBBM particles into the newly formed bone was consistently observed. Merely on the surface of the new bone, some pieces of the grafting material were only partly integrated into bone. However, these were not encapsulated by connective tissue but rather anchored into the newly regenerated bone. In all of the cases, but one, the bone volume following regeneration was adequate to place implants in a prosthetically ideal position and according to the standard protocol with complete bone coverage of the surface intended for osseointegration. Before the regenerative procedure, the average crestal bone width was 3.2 mm and to 6.9 mm at the time of implant placement. This difference was statistically significant (P<0.05, Wilcoxon's matched pairs signed-rank test). CONCLUSION: After a healing period of 9-10 months, the combination of DBBM and a collagen membrane is an effective treatment option for horizontal bone augmentation before implant placement

Effect of GBR in combination with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/ or enamel matrix proteins on the healing of critical-size defects

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of guided bone regeneration (GBR) in combination with or without deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) and/or an enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on the healing of critical-size calvarial defects. Material and methods: Forty rats were used. In all animals, a standardized critical-size calvarial defect was created surgically. The animals were randomly allocated into 4 groups of 10 animals each. Group A: One calvarial defect was left untreated, while the galeal and the cerebral aspect of the contralateral defect were covered with a bioresorbable membrane (GBR). Group B: One calvarial defect was filled with EMD, while the contralateral defect was treated with GBR and EMD. Group C: One defect was filled with DBBM, while the contralateral defect was treated with combination of GBR and DBBM. Group D: One defect was filled with DBBM combined with EMD, while the contralateral defect was treated with combination of GBR, DBBM and EMD. The healing period was 4 months. Five specimens from each group were macerated and the length, the width and the vertical dimension (thickness) of the remaining defect were evaluated by a stereomicroscope. The remaining specimens in each group were analyzed histologically. Results: The defects of the macerated specimens that were left untreated or were treated only by EMD, DBBM and combination of EMD and DBBM did not present predictably complete healing of the defects. All the defects where GBR was applied alone or combined with DBBM and/or EMD presented always complete healing (P<0.05). The combined use of GBR with EMD and/or DBBM did not offer any significant advantage above GBR alone in terms of healing of the length and the width of the defect. However, the vertical dimension of the defect was significantly higher (P<0.05) in the GBR-treated specimens of Groups C and D. The histological analysis supported these findings. Conclusion: The predictability of bone formation in critical-size defects depends mainly on the presence or absence of barrier membranes (GBR). The combined use with deproteinized bovine bone mineral and/or enamel matrix proteins did not significantly enhance the potential for complete healing provided by the GBR procedure.link_to_subscribed_fulltex