Design of removable partial dentures: a survey of dental laboratories in Greece

The aim of this study was to compare data on design and fabrication methods of removable partial dentures (RPDs) in two major cities in Greece. A questionnaire was sent to 150 randomly selected dental technicians. The participation rate was 79.3%. The anterior palatal strap, the lingual bar, and the Roach-type clasp arm designs were preferred. Half of the RPDs fabricated were retained using precision attachments. Differences between the two cities were observed in types of major maxillary connectors used, types of attachments and impression materials used, as well as the design of distal-extension RPDs. Postdoctoral education was found to have an impact on RPD fabrication. Despite the differences observed, design and fabrication of RPDs followed commonly used principles.

Marginal fit of cemented and screw-retained crowns incorporated on the Straumann (ITI) Dental Implant System: an in vitro study

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the marginal fit of crowns on the Straumann (ITI) Dental Implant System with special consideration of different casting dental materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns were fabricated: 18 crowns on standard cone abutments with an impression cylinder, partially prefabricated analogs, no coping and screw-retained (A); 18 crowns on solid abutments without an impression device, no analogs, no coping and cemented (B); and 18 crowns on solid abutments using an impression transfer cap, an analog with a shoulder, no coping and cemented (C). In each group, six crowns were made on epoxy mastercasts (Bluestar), six on synthetic plaster (Moldasynt) and six on super hard stone (Fujirock). Six additional crowns were fabricated with the transversal screw retention system onto the Octa system with impression transfer caps, metal analogs, gold copings and screw-retained (D). Impregum was used as impression material. Crowns of B and C were cemented with KetacCem. Crowns of A and D were fixed with an occlusal screw torqued at 15 N cm. Crowns were embedded, cut and polished. Under a light microscope using a magnification of x 100, the distance between the crown margin (CM) and the shoulder (marginal gap, MG) and the distance between the CM and the end of the shoulder (crown length, CL) was measured. RESULTS: MGs were 15.4+/-13.2 microm (A), 21.2+/-23.1 microm (B), 11+/-12.1 microm (C) and 10.4+/-9.3 microm (D). No statistically significantly differences using either of the casting materials were observed. CLs were -21.3+/-24.8 microm (A), 3+/-28.9 microm (B), 0.5+/-22 microm (C) and 0.1+/-15.8 microm (D). Crowns were shorter on synthetic casting materials compared with stone casts (P<0.005). CONCLUSIONS: CMs fit precisely with both cemented and screw-retained versions as well as when using no, partial or full analogs.

In Vitro Implant Impression Accuracy Using a New Photopolymerizing SDR Splinting Material

PURPOSE The study aims to evaluate three-dimensionally (3D) the accuracy of implant impressions using a new resin splinting material, "Smart Dentin Replacement" (SDR). MATERIALS AND METHODS A titanium model of an edentulous mandible with six implant analogues was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Before the total 60 impressions were taken (open tray, screw-retained abutments, vinyl polysiloxane), they were divided in four groups: A (test): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and fotopolymerizing SDR; B (test): see A, additionally sectioned and splinted again with SDR; C (control): copings pick-up splinted with dental floss and autopolymerizing Duralay® (Reliance Dental Mfg. Co., Alsip, IL, USA) acrylic resin; and D (control): see C, additionally sectioned and splinted again with Duralay. The impressions were measured directly with an optomechanical coordinate measuring machine and analyzed with a computer-aided design (CAD) geometric modeling software. The Wilcoxon matched-pair signed-rank test was used to compare groups. RESULTS While there was no difference (p = .430) between the mean 3D deviations of the test groups A (17.5 μm) and B (17.4 μm), they both showed statistically significant differences (p < .003) compared with both control groups (C 25.0 μm, D 19.1 μm). CONCLUSIONS Conventional impression techniques for edentulous jaws with multiple implants are highly accurate using the new fotopolymerizing splinting material SDR. Sectioning and rejoining of the SDR splinting had no impact on the impression accuracy.