Search

Aim: The goal of this study was to evaluate how early loading of dental implants, both functional and non‐functional, can affect the stability of the implants, marginal bone resorption after 1 year of follow‐up. Material and Methods: The research sample consisted of 24 implants placed on patients aged between 21 and 62 years (the mean age 51 years). Implants were placed at one surgical stage in the posterior area of the mandible. Then implants were loaded early after 6 weeks of implantation. The sample was divided randomly into two equal main groups according to loading types, 12 implants in the early functional loading (EFL) group and 12 implants in the early non‐functional loading (ENFL) group. The implant stability quotient was registered using Osstell Mentor at the implant placement procedure and after 6 and 12 weeks. The mean marginal bone loss around the implants was measured using the periapical radiographs after 3 and 12 months. The mean values were calculated and statistically analysed using the two‐sample t‐test with 95%confidenence interval p < 0.05). Result: The mean values of implant stability quotient (ISQ) were 72.91–73.87–76.75 in the EFL and 71.91–73.91–76.66 in the ENFL, at the implant placement procedure and 6, 12 weeks respectively. There was no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the two groups. At the 12‐month post‐loading follow‐up, the mean marginal bone loss was 0.698 for the EFL group and 0.683 for the ENFL group. There was no statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between the two groups. The implant survival rate was 100% in both groups, and there was no complication during the follow‐up period. Conclusions: This study showed that there is no difference in the implant stability quotient (ISQ) and bone loss between the early functional loading group and the early non‐functional loading group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brief Background Mandibular angle fractures are common. Currently, open reduction and internal fixation using plates and screws is considered the standard technique in the management of these fractures. Until now there is no consensus about the ideal configuration of the plates and screws, and this is one of the most debated issues in maxillofacial trauma. This 3D finite element analysis study aims to conduct a biomechanical comparison between several known configurations of miniplates used in the fixation of mandibular angle fractures. Materials and Methods A 3D model of a mandible was constructed from a CBCT scan, then an unfavourable fracture in the angle area was simulated and miniplates and screws were modelled and assembled with the mandible model according to the studied fixation configurations. Occlusal loading was represented as ipsilateral molar clench. Discussion Two miniplate fixation showed the lowest fracture site displacement, while single inferior miniplate fixation showed the highest one. The single superior miniplate fixation showed the highest equivalent (Von-mises) stress in both miniplate and screws. On the other hand, the lowest equivalent (Von-mises) stress was observed in the two miniplate fixation configurations. Summary and Conclusions The two miniplate fixation method offers the best fracture line stability, but a single superior miniplate fixation can be considered a less invasive biomechanically accepted approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The study's objective was to assess the dimensional accuracy and reliability of dental digital models prepared by direct intraoral scanning and indirect scanning of the plaster models compared to the plaster models as the gold standard., Materials and Methods: This study included 20 patients. Nine had a class I malocclusion, seven had a class II malocclusion, and four had a class III malocclusion. Intraoral scanning was done for the upper and lower arches of all the patients enrolled in this study using an intraoral scanner (i700; Medit, Seoul, Korea). The next step was preparing the plaster model for the control group. Addition-silicone impressions were taken for each patient's arches. The impressions were poured according to American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) standards. Finally, the digital models of the indirect scanning group were prepared using a 3D desktop scanner (T710; Medit). In total, 26 measurements were made on the plaster and digital models. Paired t-tests were used to test for significant differences between the studied groups. The reliability of the studied techniques was tested using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Because of the multiple comparisons, the ɑ level was adjusted and set at 0.002., Results: No significant differences were found between the intraoral scanning group (20 patients) and the plaster models group (20 patients; P>0.002). The ICCs ranged from 0.814 to 0.993, indicating excellent agreement between the direct digital and traditional plaster models. There were no significant differences between the digital and original plaster models (P>0.002). ICCs ranged from 0.834 to 0.995, indicating excellent agreement between the indirect digital and original plaster models. No significant differences were detected between the direct and indirect digital models (P>0.002). ICCs ranged between 0.813 and 0.999, indicating excellent agreement between direct and indirect digital models., Conclusion: Both direct and indirect scanning techniques are accurate and reliable for digital model preparation and can be considered an alternative to traditional plaster models used in clinical orthodontics diagnostic applications. The intraoral scanning technique can be considered a valid alternative for indirect scanning of the plaster models to prepare digital working models during the digital design and fabrication of orthodontic appliances such as clear aligners., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2024, Jaber et al.)

Introduction: Malocclusions with anterior crossbite are a major esthetic and functional concern for patients. This case report presents a 27-year-old Syrian female who was diagnosed with a class 3 malocclusion, combined with anterior crossbite, deep bite, concave profile, and inadequate maxillary incisor exposure. There was a centric occlusion (CO)/centric relation (CR) discrepancy and the mandible could be manipulated to near edge-to-edge incisal relation. Correction was done by class 3 intermaxillary elastics on upper and lower mini-implants for the first 6 months, followed by preadjusted edgewise appliance. The objective of implant-supported elastics was to adapt the patient for the CR condylar position without dental effect. Treatment was completed in 24 months with satisfactory dental and facial relationship.