Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry最新文献

{"title":"Capability of seven intraoral scanners to reproduce interdental spaces between two adjacent veneer preparations","authors":"Marta Revilla-León DDS, MSD, PhD ,&nbsp;Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero DDS, PhD ,&nbsp;Abdul B. Barmak MD, MSc, EdD ,&nbsp;Rubén Guaita-Sáez DDS ,&nbsp;Jesus Maneiro-Lojo DDS ,&nbsp;John C. Kois DMD, MSD ,&nbsp;Lucía Fernández-Estevan DDS, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.022","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.022","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>Intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be used to fabricate tooth-supported restorations. The bridge scanning error appears in the interproximal space between the proximal surfaces of adjacent teeth that have a diastema. However, the interdental space threshold that IOSs are capable of reproducing without presenting the bridge scanning error is unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the capability of different IOSs to reproduce interdental spaces between 2 adjacent veneer preparations.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A virtual model encompassing the maxillary right to the left canine was designed. Both central incisors had a veneer preparation. The virtual design was duplicated 5 times. On each model, a space was created between the veneer preparations (from 0.1 to 0.6 mm), and each cast was printed and duplicated in dental stone. The interdental space was modified with polishing strips and checked with calibrated interproximal gauges. Six groups were created depending on the space (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, and 0.6 mm) tested and the 7 subgroups based on the IOS examined: i700, TRIOS 5, Primescan, Freedom Air, Elite, iTero Element 5D Plus, and iTero Lumina (<em>n</em>=10). Each specimen was evaluated: no error, partial error, and complete error between veneer preparations. The Fisher test was used to compare the outcome (complete, partial, and no error) among the subgroups tested (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>No association was found between the 0.6- and 0.5-mm interdental space and no bridge scanning error (<em>P</em>&gt;.999). Additionally, no association was found between the 0.1-mm interdental space tested and the complete bridge scanning error (<em>P</em>&gt;.999). However, for the 0.4, 0.3, and 0.2 subgroups, a significant association was found between the corresponding space and the partial or complete scanning error (<em>P</em>&lt;.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The interdental space reproduction capabilities depended on the mesiodistal dimension of the space and IOSs selected. All the IOSs tested were able to reproduce the 0.6- and 0.5-mm space, but none of the IOSs were capable of reproducing the 0.1-mm interdental space. Additionally, only the iTero Lumina and Freedom Air systems were capable of reproducing the 0.2-mm space between veneer preparations. The interdental space reproduction threshold for the iTero Lumina and Freedom Air systems was 0.2 mm, for the TRIOS 5, i700, Primescan, and Elite systems 0.4 mm, and for the iTero Element 5D 0.5 mm.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages e97-e105"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145634756","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Acceptability, deviation, and efficiency of 2 fully automated CAD software programs in designing 3-unit fixed dental prostheses: A comparative study","authors":"Kedith Sawangsri DDS, MS ,&nbsp;Mariam Bekkali DMD ,&nbsp;Yuan-Lynn Hsieh DDS, MS ,&nbsp;Yi-Cheng Lai DDS, MSD ,&nbsp;Yudanur Ucar DDS, PhD ,&nbsp;Hanin S. Hammoudeh DDS, MS","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.034","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.034","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>Fully automated artificial intelligence (AI)-based computer-aided design (CAD) software programs have shown promise for single-unit crown design, but their accuracy, acceptability, and efficiency in designing multi-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) remain unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This in vitro study evaluated the design acceptability, trueness, and efficiency of 2 commercially available fully automated AI -based CAD software programs in designing anterior and posterior 3-unit FDPs compared with those designed by dental laboratory technicians.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Digital scans of natural abutments prepared for 3-unit fixed dental prostheses (12 anterior and 18 posterior FDPs) were replicated into 3 sets and allocated for restoration design by Certified Dental Technician (CDT), dentbird (DB), and Atomica AI (AA). Restoration designs were evaluated qualitatively using an 11-criteria acceptability score by 3 calibrated prosthodontists and quantitatively using root mean square (RMS) deviation analysis. CAD times were recorded for each group. Statistical analyses included the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the Dunn post hoc test, paired <em>t</em> test, and repeated-measure ANOVA followed by the paired <em>t</em> test to evaluate intergroup differences (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>DB successfully generated all designs (100%), while AA achieved a 93% overall success rate (83% for anterior and 100% posterior FDPs). AA obtained acceptability scores comparable with those of CDT, particularly in posterior FDPs, while DB exhibited significantly lower scores, especially in anterior FPDs. Both AI programs scored lower than CDT in occlusal and proximal contact areas and connector size (<em>P</em>&lt;.001). AA demonstrated lower RMS deviation than DB in anterior FDPs (<em>P</em>&lt;.05). Both AI systems significantly reduced design time, with AA completing design faster than DB in anterior FDPs (<em>P</em>&lt;.05).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Fully automated AI-based CAD systems demonstrated variable performance in 3-unit FDP design. AA achieved acceptable trueness and morphology, particularly in posterior regions, while DB underperformed in esthetic and functional areas. Although both systems improved design efficiency, human oversight remains essential for occlusal and proximal contact, connector design, and anterior FDPs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages e64-e74"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145696088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Accuracy of pin-supported surgical guides for complete arch implant placement: A comparison with conventional mucosa-supported guides","authors":"Yu Jen Chen DDS, MS ,&nbsp;Yuqing Lu BS, MS, PhD ,&nbsp;Jiayi Lu DDS, MS ,&nbsp;Fei Liu DDS, MS, PhD ,&nbsp;Berna Saglik DDS, MS ,&nbsp;Sandra H. Stuhr DMD, MS ,&nbsp;Junying Li DDS, MS, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.006","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.006","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>While static computer-assisted implant surgery (sCAIS) has improved implant placement accuracy in edentulous arches, mucosa-supported sCAIS guides present limitations, including a lack of direct visualization and irrigation. A novel design for pin-supported sCAIS guides has been developed to address these issues, but its accuracy compared with that of mucosa-supported sCAIS guides remains unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant placement achieved with pin-supported and mucosa-supported sCAIS guides using standardized edentulous maxillary models.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>Twenty-four identical edentulous maxillary models were divided into 2 groups (n=12). The mucosa-supported group underwent fully guided implant placement using mucosa-supported sCAIS guides with a flapless protocol. The pin-supported group used a 2-guide pin-supported sCAIS protocol with flap elevation, with 6 implants being planned and placed per model. After implant placement, scan bodies were attached, and the models were scanned. Deviations between planned and actual implant positions were measured using the Blender software program and custom Python scripts. A linear mixed model was used to compare mean deviations between groups (α=.05, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The pin-supported group demonstrated statistically higher deviations across most parameters, including coronal global (0.89 ±0.36 mm versus 0.72 ±0.305 mm), apical global (1.22 ±0.47 mm versus 0.97 ±0.43 mm), coronal horizontal (0.63 ±0.36 mm versus 0.48 ±0.23 mm), apical horizontal (1.01 ±0.51 mm versus 0.77 ±0.44 mm), and angular deviations (2.84 ±1.33 degrees versus 2.03 ±1.03 degrees), compared with the mucosa-supported group (<em>P</em>&lt;.05). Depth deviation showed no significant difference (<em>P</em>&gt;.05). All mean deviations remained within clinically acceptable limits (&lt;2 mm and &lt;5 degrees).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>In this in vitro study, pin-supported sCAIS guides showed statistically greater deviations than mucosa-supported sCAIS guides across most parameters. However, the mean differences were small, approximately 0.15 to 0.25 mm in linear deviation and 0.8 degree in angular deviation. These differences remained within generally accepted sCAIS accuracy thresholds. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings in clinical settings, assess applicability across patient variations, and evaluate long-term treatment outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages 808.e1-808.e7"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145648747","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mechanical behavior of complete arch implant-supported prostheses with distal cantilevers fabricated from different digital material combinations.","authors":"Nataly Mory Rubiños, Seyed Ali Mosaddad, Pedro Díaz, Marta Revilla-León, Miguel Gómez-Polo","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2026.03.006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2026.03.006","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of problem: </strong>Complete arch implant-supported prostheses (CAISPs) often require distal cantilevers; however, evidence on the influence of framework and veneering material combinations remains limited.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the mechanical behavior of 6 digitally fabricated material configurations in CAISPs with 7.5- and 15-mm cantilevers.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Thirty screw-retained CAISPs (n=5 per group) were fabricated: cobalt chromium with feldspathic ceramic (CRCO-C), titanium alloy with high-impact polymer composite (TI-HIPC), monolithic zirconia (ZTN), veneered zirconia with porcelain (ZF-C), ceramic-filled polyetheretherketone (BioHPP) with composite resin (B-RC), and BioHPP with high-impact polymer composite veneer (B-HIPC). The specimens were thermocycled (10 000 cycles, 5 to 55 °C) and cyclic loaded (110 N, 300 000 cycles). Flexural strength testing was performed at both cantilever lengths to record maximum load (FMax), veneer fracture load (FChipping), and vertical deflection. Fracture modes were examined under optical microscopy. The data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and post hoc tests (α=.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At a 7.5-mm cantilever length, all groups except B-HIPC exceeded 900 N. CRCO-C (2098 ±43.8 N) and TI-HIPC (2060 ±115.5 N) showed the highest strength, followed by ZTN (1190 ±140.9 N), B-RC (1136 ±97.9 N), and ZF-C (910.6 ±272.5 N) (P<.001). At 15 mm, strength decreased by approximately 50% for B-RC and ZF-C, 35% for the TI-HIPC group and 24% for B-HIPC, while CRCO-C remained stable. Chipping resistance was highest for CRCO-C, followed by TI-HIPC and B-HIPC; milled composite resins showed greater resistance than conventional composite resins (P=.02). Deflection at Fmax was minimal (<0.3 mm) for CRCO-C and zirconia but higher for TI-HIPC and B-HIPC, particularly at 15 mm.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>At a 7.5-mm cantilever length, most tested material-design configurations achieved clinically acceptable fracture resistance. At 15 mm, values above the clinical threshold were observed only in the CRCO-C, TI-HIPC, and ZTN configurations.</p>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147609264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Retention of telescopic versus LOCATOR attachments and marginal bone loss surrounding implant-retained maxillary overdentures: A 2-year randomized clinical trial","authors":"Wafaa Ibrahim Ibrahim BDS, MDSc, PhD ,&nbsp;Reem M. Abdeen BDS, MDSc, PhD ,&nbsp;Mohamed Mahmoud Denewar BDS, MDSc, PhD ,&nbsp;Sahar A. Kortam BDS, MDSc, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.05.036","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.05.036","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div><span>A maxillary implant-retained overdenture (Max IOD) represents a controversial prosthesis. Biomechanically, the prosthesis induces strain on the implants, associated with complications from maintenance difficulties to implant loss. Whether the choice of attachment system affects retention of the prosthesis and </span>marginal bone loss (MBL) around the implants remains unclear.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this clinical trial was to assess the amount of retention and MBL provided by 2 attachment types: telescopic (TA) and LOCATOR (LA).</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div><span><span>Forty participants (24 women and 16 men) with completely edentulous maxillas and mandibles were enrolled. Each participant received a two-implant-retained mandibular overdenture and a four-implant-retained Max IOD and was randomly divided into two groups based on the attachments that retained the Max IOD (TA or LA). At baseline, 1 month after delivery (R0), retention and MBL (vertical and horizontal) surrounding the </span>dental implants<span> were measured for both groups at 12 months (R12) and at 24 months (R24) after the insertion of the prostheses. A two-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to verify the standard assumption for numerical data. The research groups were compared using the Student </span></span><em>t</em> test for independent samples. A paired <em>t</em> test was used to compare numerical variables within groups. Any comparison involving more than two time points was subject to the Bonferroni adjustment of multiple comparisons (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A significant difference was found in the retention of the two groups throughout all follow-up periods (<em>P</em>&lt;.001), with the TA overdenture showing higher values when compared with the LA overdenture. The TA group was associated with higher vertical and horizontal MBL than the LA group, with a significant difference at R12 and R24 (<em>P</em>&lt;.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The TA was found to be a more retentive option for Max IODs than the LA attachment. However, the LA group showed less MBL around implants than the TA group over 2 years. These findings suggest that TA and LA attachments can be suitable for retaining maxillary implant overdentures, as the MBL around both groups remained within acceptable levels.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages 778-786"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144540664","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A positioning template for an interim implant-supported prosthesis using an existing surgical guide design: A dental technique","authors":"Jekita Kaenploy DDS, MS ,&nbsp;Jaewon Kim DDS, MS, PhD ,&nbsp;Kedith Sawangsri DDS, MS ,&nbsp;Duhyeong Lee DDS, MS, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.07.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.07.007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Immediate loading protocols enhance implant-supported prostheses by improving function, esthetics, and overall efficiency during the healing phase. Although achieving an accurate pickup of the interim prosthesis can present clinical challenges, it can be facilitated by using a positioning template. This technique report describes the modification of a predesigned, tooth-supported surgical guide into a positioning template by using an open-source software program and additive manufacturing technologies. The approach enables precise prosthesis alignment, stable intraoral pickup, and accurate transfer to a diagnostic cast. This streamlined workflow minimizes intraoperative adjustments, reduces procedural complexity, and eliminates the need for additional visits, offering a practical and efficient procedure for immediate interim implant-supported restorations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages 716-721"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144760396","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Biomechanical effect of different abutment and crown restoration materials in a single anterior dental implant and surrounding bone: A 3D finite element analysis","authors":"Marwa Emam BDS, MDSc, DDS ,&nbsp;Ludger Keilig Dr. rer. nat. Dipl.-Math. ,&nbsp;Christoph Bourauel Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Dipl.-Phys","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.031","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.11.031","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>The longevity of implant-supported prostheses is influenced by factors that include the distribution of stress and strains within the prosthetic components and surrounding bone. However, a consensus regarding the optimal combination of abutment and crown materials for implant-supported restorations is lacking.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>This in vitro study evaluated, through finite element analysis (FEA), the stress distribution within prosthetic components and at the bone-implant interface resulting from different combinations of esthetic abutment and crown materials.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>A 3-dimensional (3D) FEA model of an implant-supported maxillary central incisor was constructed with segmented computed tomography data of an edentulous premaxilla processed in the Mimics and 3-Matic software programs. The implant and components were integrated with 5 materials of varying elastic moduli (E) to create 6 abutment and crown combinations: polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and lithium disilicate, PEEK and composite resin, resin-modified ceramic and lithium disilicate, resin-modified ceramic and resin-modified ceramic, PEEK and resin-modified ceramic, and zirconia and lithium disilicate. A static axial loading of 500 N was applied, principal stresses, and von Mises (mvM) stresses were analyzed at the bone-implant interface, luting agent, and prosthetic components.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>All models exhibited similar mvM stress distribution patterns at the bone-implant interface. Abutments with higher E values (zirconia, resin-modified ceramic) generated lower mvM stresses in the crown and luting agent compared with lower E materials (PEEK). The PEEK and composite resin model showed the highest mvM stresses (180.7 MPa in the crown; 1542 MPa in luting agent), while zirconia and lithium disilicate exhibited the lowest (107.5 MPa and 146.6 MPa, respectively).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Abutments with higher elastic moduli demonstrated more favorable stress distribution within the crown and luting agent than those with lower modulus values.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages e81-e90"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145723518","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Surface and linear scan accuracy of intraoral and extraoral photogrammetry systems: An in vitro study","authors":"Mehmet Necip Selvi DDS ,&nbsp;Mustafa Borga Dönmez DDS, PhD ,&nbsp;Münir Demirel DDS, PhD ,&nbsp;Almira Ada Diken Türksayar DDS","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.12.001","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.12.001","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>Digital photogrammetry systems have the potential to simplify implant recording procedures and improve accuracy. Nevertheless, the surface and linear scan accuracy of these systems, particularly those using intraoral photogrammetry technology, compared with that of conventional impressions, has not been fully established.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the surface and linear scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral and extraoral photogrammetry systems by comparing them with conventional polyvinyl siloxane impressions for complete arch mandibular implant-supported prostheses.</div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div>An edentulous master mandibular stone cast with 6 implants was digitized with an industrial-grade scanner to generate its reference standard tessellation language (R-STL) file. Digital scans of the master cast were made using intraoral (Aoralscan Elite, AE) and extraoral photogrammetry systems (Icam4D, IC; OxoFit, OX), while stone casts obtained from conventional polyvinyl siloxane impressions of the master cast (CNV) were digitized with a laboratory scanner (<em>n</em>=20). The R-STL file and the STL files of all recordings were imported into an analysis software program to calculate the surface and linear deviations of the recording methods. While the surface deviations were analyzed with the Welch analysis of variance and Tamhane T2 tests, the linear deviations were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests. Precision was defined as the average of how much each measurement differed from the overall mean and was statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-adjusted post hoc tests (α=.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>OX recordings had the highest surface deviations, while CNV impressions had the lowest linear deviations (<em>P</em>≤.009). In addition, OX led to lower linear deviations than IC (<em>P</em>=.002). Regardless of the outcome, IC led to the lowest values when the precision of the measured deviations was considered (<em>P</em>&lt;.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Although the tested recording methods showed significant differences in scan accuracy, the magnitude of deviations was small, and the deviations were within clinically acceptable thresholds.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages 818.e1-818.e7"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145794194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluation of mechanical properties of CAD-CAM composite resins for milled versus 3D printed definitive restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Gabriel Nunes Sampaio DDS, MS (Student) ,&nbsp;João Pedro Justino de Oliveira Limírio DDS, MS, PhD (Student) ,&nbsp;Jéssica Marcela de Luna Gomes DDS, MS, PhD ,&nbsp;Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos DDS, MS, PhD ,&nbsp;Aldiéris Alves Pesqueira DDS, MS, PhD ,&nbsp;Eduardo Piza Pellizzer DDS, MS, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.05.024","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.05.024","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><div>Three-dimensionally (3D) printed composite resin materials for definitive restorations have recently been introduced but doubts still exist regarding their mechanical properties.</div></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>The purpose of this systematic review<span> and meta-analysis was to compare the mechanical properties of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) composite resins used in the fabrication of definitive restorations using 3D printing and milling methods.</span></div></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><div><span>This systematic review followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered on the Open Science Framework (</span><span><span>https://osf.io/gps2f/</span><svg><path></path></svg></span><span>) platform for in vitro studies. A population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) question was formulated: “Do the CAD-CAM composite resins for definitive restorations used in the 3D printing method have mechanical properties similar to those used in the milling method?” A literature search was carried out in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Lilacs databases until November 2024. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoBDEMAT tool. The meta-analysis was performed by using the RevMan 5.4 program (α=.05).</span></div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div><span>A total of 6 in vitro studies published until November 2024 were included after the search, and a total of 440 specimens were evaluated. Milled composite resins demonstrated higher values for flexural strength in the 3-point bend test (</span><em>P</em><span>&lt;.001; SMD: −1.76; 95% CI: −2.51 to −1.02), microhardness (</span><em>P</em><span>&lt;.001; SMD: −2.32; 95% CI: −2.66 to −2.05), and elastic modulus (</span><em>P</em>&lt;.001; SMD: −4.28; 95% CI: −6.51 to −2.05). In the biaxial flexural strength test, no significant differences were observed (<em>P</em><span>=.29; SMD: −0.74; 95% CI: −2.11 to −0.62). All meta-analyses exhibited high heterogeneity (I²&gt;84%), except for microhardness (I²=5%).</span></div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div><span>When the flexural strength, elastic modulus, and </span>Vickers microhardness for CAD-CAM composite resins (3D printed and milled) were evaluated, the milled resins exhibited better mechanical properties.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages 744-752"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144285074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A selective topical anesthesia technique for anesthetizing the abutment-gingival collar mucosa","authors":"Nirmal Kurian BDS, MDS ,&nbsp;Kevin George Varghese BDS, MDS ,&nbsp;Nishanth A. Sudharson BDS, MDS ,&nbsp;Rhea Mary John BDS","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.07.021","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2025.07.021","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":"135 4","pages":"Pages 836-837"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144835446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}