Search

The objective of this prospective clinical study was to investigate survival for endodontically treated teeth restored with adhesively luted prefabricated dentinlike or rigid posts.Data were recorded for glass-fiber posts (GFPs) and compared with historical controls evaluating glass-fiber (GFP I) and titanium posts (TPs) for 128 patients. Three groups were defined based on the type of post system used: group 1, GFP I (n = 41); group 2, GFP II (n = 41); and group 3, TP (n = 46). Posts were adhesively luted with self-adhesive resin, adhesive composite core buildups were performed, and all teeth were restored with full-coverage restorations. The primary end point was restoration survival at recall. Outcome was assessed after 6, 12, 24 and up to 178 months clinically and radiographically. Data were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test and Cox regression analysis.After up to 178 months of observation, 26 restorations failed (GFP I: 10, GFP II: 9, and TP: 7) and 49 (GFP I: 18, GFP II: 12, and TP: 19) were in situ. Cumulative survival probabilities were 57.1% for the GFP I, 56.5% for the GFP II, and 71.8% for the TP groups. In bivariate Cox regression, the factors tooth type and grade of abrasion were significantly assfociated with failure. In multivariate Cox regression, none of the investigated factors were significantly associated with failure. The post system had no significant impact on tooth survival (P .05).Comparing GFPs and TPs, the post system had no impact on tooth survival up to 15 years. This study indicates that the effect size of post material on survival is low.

The Baltic Denture System provides a digital way to fabricate complete dentures in 2 visits. Conventional dentures using injection or compression molding require additional visits and complex laboratory procedures. However, how the fabrication method affects clinical outcomes is unclear.The purpose of this clinical, randomized, controlled, double-blinded crossover trial was to evaluate the impact of the fabrication method (digital versus conventional production) of complete dentures on clinical outcomes.Sixteen participants received 2 pairs of new complete dentures, produced in a digital and a conventional workflow. Each complete denture was worn for an observation period of 3 months. The order of the dentures was randomized. The primary outcome was the clinical assessment of the dentures by a blinded examiner, including peripheral extension, cutout for buccal and labial frenula, denture extension, and denture thickness. Denture esthetics were evaluated by the midline, position of anterior teeth, buccal corridor, and smile arc, and occlusal relationships were evaluated by the vertical dimension, sagittal relation, the Camper plane, and occlusion. In addition, the retention of maxillary and mandibular dentures and phonetics was evaluated. Differences between the prostheses were statistically analyzed with the McNemar test (α=.05).The borders of the digital dentures were significantly more often overextended at the time of insertion (P=.021), reducing the retention of the digital dentures, especially the maxillary dentures (P=.016). The borders of the dentures could be corrected so that after 2 weeks and 3 months, no significant differences could be seen between digital dentures and conventional dentures.The fabrication method has a significant influence only on the dimension of the denture border. It was significantly more often overextended in digital dentures and impaired retention, especially of the maxillary dentures, at the time of insertion. As this parameter is correctable, no significant clinical differences could be observed over the observation time of 3 months between digital dentures and conventional dentures.