Search

Prosthodontics, which is removable and fixed, is the branch dealing with the replacement of missing teeth. Implant therapy is the popular treatment modality and commonly preferred treatment option by many patients and clinicians for missing teeth in recent years. Primary implant stability (PIS) is one of the crucial factors for osseointegration. It has been considered a crucial factor in the success of implants. Moreover, several factors influence PIS. On the other hand, both secondary implant stability and osseointegration are influenced by the PIS. Bone density, bone volume, bone-to-implant contact, and other factors that enhance or degrade the primary stability. Certain host sites such as the maxillary posterior region demand more dense bone to achieve desired results as they are the low-density areas of the jaw. So, a new promising and growing innovative concept of osseodensification (OD) offers a great solution with multiple benefits and desirable results. This review article aims to enlighten the multiple benefits of OD technique and their mechanism of action., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Khubchandani et al.)

Context: Infection control is an important concept in the present day practice of dentistry. Disinfection of dental impressions is part of the daily routine in a dental clinics. After disinfection, it is important that impressions remain dimensionally stable., Aim: The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of chemical disinfectants and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection on the dimensional stability of the polyvinyl siloxane impressions., Objectives: The objective of the study is (1) To evaluate the effect of chemical disinfectant (2% glutaraldehyde and 1% sodium hypochlorite) and UV disinfectant on the dimensional stability of polyvinyl siloxane impression material. (2) Comparative evaluation of the dimensional discrepancy between the cast poured from the polyvinyl impressions material, that is subjected to chemical disinfectant and UV disinfectant to that of cast poured from impressions that were nondisinfected., Materials and Methods: A customized tray was fabricated to make impressions. Impressions were divided into four groups, 10 samples were disinfected with 2% glutaraldehyde for 20 min, 10 samples were disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite for 20 min, 10 samples were disinfected with UV light for 20 min, and 10 samples were not subjected to disinfection which served as control group. All the samples were poured after 30 min in die stone. Measurements were recorded using traveling microscope of 0.001 accuracy. Statistical analysis used in this study was the one-way ANOVA test., Results: The result showed significant dimensional changes in samples disinfected with 2% glutaraldehyde and 1% sodium hypochlorite, whereas samples disinfected with UV disinfectant unit showed no significant dimensional changes when compared with control group samples. Within the chemical groups, impressions disinfected with 1% sodium hypochlorite showed more discrepancy in the dimensions when compared to the 2% glutaraldehyde disinfected group., Conclusions: UV light disinfectant can be safely used to disinfect impressions as compared to chemical disinfectants in clinical prosthodontic procedures., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest.