Search

Titanium is the main component of dental implants. It is also routinely used as a framework material for implant-supported full-arch prostheses due to its low density, biocompatibility, and other mechanical properties. Remarkable mechanical properties such as lesser mass density and higher young's modulus of graphene have gained popularity among scientists, improving the properties of biomedical implants. Thus, our study aimed to compare the outcome through the von Mises stresses generated on All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, as well as on the framework, and evaluate the effect of stress patterns on the crestal bone around implants in the mandible. FEA (Finite Element Analysis) study was carried out using edentulous mandible models. Four 3D FEA models with 3 and 6 implants were used (Model 1: Titanium bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 2: Graphene bar-supported 6 straight implants; Model 3: Titanium bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted; Model 4: Graphene bar-supported 3 implants with 30 degrees-tilted) in order to simulate endosseous implant designs. The implant measuring 4.2 mm in diameter and 11.5 mm in length were used. The most distal implants in the 3-implant models were placed with angulation of 30 degrees; in 6 implants, they were vertically placed. All the models were analyzed for vertical and oblique axis with a single force magnitude of 100 N. In all four implant models and under loading conditions, the peak stress points were always on the neck of the most distal implant. von Mises stresses were within the normal stress range. In a conventional six-straight implant model supported by a titanium framework, the cortical stress in the region of implants was 25.27 MPa, whereas, in the graphene framework, it was 12.18 MPa. Under vertical load, there was a significant difference in the cortical stress around the tilted implants (30 degrees) in the 3-implant system of titanium and graphene frameworks, respectively, 70.31 MPa and 21.27 MPa. The graphene framework demonstrated better results than the titanium framework for the conventional six-implant system under vertical load, achieving stress of 30.09 MPa and 76.60 MPa, respectively. In the case of the 3-implant system, a significant difference in the bar stress was observed between graphene and titanium, respectively, 256.32 MPa and 180.1 MPa of bar stress. Within the limitation of this study, the peri-implant stresses were decreased using graphene framework models. Hence, it was possible to conclude that the best load-bearing capacity results were found in the graphene framework group compared to the titanium framework for All-on-6 and All-on-3 implant models, even though both materials are reliable options used as framework materials in implant-supported full-arch prostheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accomplishing painless endodontic treatment, especially in the mandibular molar region, is challenging. Hence, the aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine when used as supplemental intra-ligamentary (IL) anesthesia in mandibular molars having symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with symptomatic apical periodontitis after failed Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block (IANB) injection. In this prospective study, one-hundred and forty-seven adult patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in a mandibular tooth were included who received IANB with 1.8 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Patients who experienced pain were recorded using the Heft–Parker visual analog scale (HP-VAS score ≥ 55 mm) and received supplement intra-ligament injection with either4% articaine or 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine. Supplementary intra-ligament injections resulted in 82.6% and 91.3% of profound anesthesia in the first molar region for 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine, respectively. Similarly, an additional IL injection of articaine success percent (78.9%) in the second molar region was higher than lidocaine (63.1%). The overall success ratio revealed no significant difference in achieving profound anesthesia of either solution. In this study population, there was no difference in the success ratio of anesthesia between 2% lidocaine and 4% articaine when used as supplemental IL injection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Less residual alveolar bone at extraction site at esthetic and functional tooth position is the main limitation in placing a dental implant, especially at long-span edentulous ridges. This needs ridge augmentation. Aims: To assess bone width gain and implant stability following narrow ridge augmentation using the vertical ridge split technique. Materials and Methods: In 22 subjects within the age group of 20-60 years and the mean age of 38.46 years. The vertical ridge split technique was done in all subjects for horizontal ridge augmentation. Paraesthesia, pain/discomfort, mobility, and radiographic crestal bone width were assessed 6 months postoperatively. The data were described as mean and standard deviation along with number and percentage. Paired t-test was also used keeping the level of significance at P < 0.05. Results: Implant stability was seen in 86.36% (n = 19) study subjects and were not stable in 13.63% (n = 3) subjects. Bone width preoperatively was in the range of 3.1-4.4 mm with the mean value of 3.64 ± 0.41. Postoperatively, the bone width increased and was in the range of 5.2-6.3 mm with the mean value of 5.62 ± 0.45 mm. This increase postoperatively was statistically significant with a P value of <0.001 Conclusion: The present study concludes that acceptable success results are seen using the ridge split technique with simultaneous dental implants placement in both atrophic maxilla and mandible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]