Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
5.4
3.9
Journals
JCM
Special Issues
Restorative Dentistry: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives
share announcement

Restorative Dentistry: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 March 2022) | Viewed by 10960

Special Issue Editor

Prof. Dr. Stefan Vandeweghe

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Oral Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Interests: implant dentistry; intra-oral scanning; cad-cam; digital dentistry; prosthodontics

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Restorative dentistry is evolving rapidly. Cad-cam technology has become a standard workflow in the dental lab and found its way in more and more dental practices, as chairside production units become better and more affordable. Intra-oral scanners are replacing the conventional impression paste and allow a faster production and turnover time with the dental lab. The creation of the virtual patient, by combining CBCT, intra-oral scanning and face-scanning has become a valuable tool for planning and communication. New restorative materials have been introduced the past decade, which help to improve the esthetic appearance and simplify the production. The use of 3D printing allows the creation of complex structures in a variety of materials. This special issue intendts to focus on recent advances and future perspectives within the field of restorative dentistry. In summary, it provides the clinican an overview of the recent technical and material innovations and gives a glimp of what can be expected in the near future.

Prof. Dr. Stefan Vandeweghe
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Intra-oral scanning
  • Cad-cam
  • 3D printing
  • Digital dentistry
  • Monolithic materials
  • Ceramic
  • Milling
  • Cementation
  • Virtual planning

Published Papers (3 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

13 pages, 10200 KiB  
Article
Case Series on the Long-Term Effect of Three Different Types of Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures on Clinical Outcomes and Complications
by Emitis Natali Naeini, Hugo De Bruyn, Ewald M. Bronkhorst and Jan D’haese
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(8), 2251; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082251 - 18 Apr 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2275
Abstract
(1) Long-term data on maxillary implant overdentures (IODs) are scarce. This case series evaluated three types of IODs supported by six, four or three implants (Anyridge®, Mega’Gen Implant Co., Ltd., Daegu, South-Korea), after 3–5 years in function. (2) A total of [...] Read more.
(1) Long-term data on maxillary implant overdentures (IODs) are scarce. This case series evaluated three types of IODs supported by six, four or three implants (Anyridge®, Mega’Gen Implant Co., Ltd., Daegu, South-Korea), after 3–5 years in function. (2) A total of 31 patients, with 132 implants, were non-randomly allocated based on available bone or financial limitations. IOD-6 received a telescopic overdenture; IOD-4 a bar; and IOD-3, non-connected implants with locator abutments. Implant survival, bone level changes, probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque index, bleeding on probing (BOP), and technical, biological and aesthetic complications were registered. Impact of suprastructures on bone loss and PPD was analyzed using mixed-effect linear regression models. Differences between groups were analyzed using the ANOVA test for BOP, and Kruskal Wallis test for complications. (3) In total, 23 patients participated in the follow-up (9 female, 14 male), with average age of 62.2 years; 7, 11 and 5 patients in IOD-6, IOD-4 and IOD-3, respectively. Implant survival after 4.4 years on average, was 98% in total; 100%, 97.8% and 93.3% for IOD-6, IOD-4 and IOD-3, respectively. Mean bone loss corresponded to 0.68 mm (SD 1.06, range −4.57–1.51), 0.39 mm (SD 1.06, range −3.6–2.43), and 1.42 mm (SD 1.68, range −5.11–0.74) for IOD-6, IOD-4 and IOD-3, respectively. A statistically significant difference was seen in bone level when comparing IOD-6 to IOD-3 (p = 0.044), and IOD-4 to IOD-3 (p = 0.018). Mean PPD was 3.8 mm (SD: 0.69; range 2.5–5.3), 3.5 mm (SD 0.59; range 2.33–5), and 3.2 mm (SD 0.56; range 2–4) for IOD-6, IOD-4 and IOD-3, respectively, and differed significantly between IOD-6 and IOD-3 (p = 0.029). Incidence of peri-implantitis was 1%. No differences were seen for complications between groups. (4) Maxillary IOD supported by four to six implants is the most reliable treatment regarding implant survival and peri-implant health. More research is needed in the clinical outcomes, in particular the peri-implant health, and complications of maxillary IODs, especially with a reduced number of implants. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restorative Dentistry: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

10 pages, 1232 KiB  
Article
In Vitro Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses
by Rani D’haese, Tom Vrombaut, Herman Roeykens and Stefan Vandeweghe
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(3), 594; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030594 - 25 Jan 2022
Cited by 8 | Viewed by 3049
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions when compared to conventional impressions, when performed on the abutment or implant level. Methods: One resin cast with six implants and another cast with six abutments were scanned with [...] Read more.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions when compared to conventional impressions, when performed on the abutment or implant level. Methods: One resin cast with six implants and another cast with six abutments were scanned with Primescan v5.1 (PS51), Primescan v5.2 (PS52), Trios 3 (T3), and Trios 4 (T4). Additionally, conventional impressions (A) were made, poured in gypsum, and digitized using a lab scanner (IScan D104i). A coordinate machine (Atos, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany) was used to generate the reference scan of both casts. For all scans, the position of the implants was calculated and matched with the reference scan. Angular and coronal measurements per implant were considered for trueness and precision. Results: For the implant-level model, PS52 performed significantly better in terms of trueness and precision compared to all other impressions, except for the angular trueness of A (p = 0.072) and the coronal trueness of PS51 (p = 1.000). For the abutment-level model, PS52 also performed significantly better than all other impressions, except for the coronal trueness and precision of A (p = 1.000). Conclusions: Digital impressions for full-arch implant supported prostheses can be as accurate as conventional impressions, depending on the intra-oral scanner and software. Overall, abutment level impressions were more accurate compared to implant level impressions. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restorative Dentistry: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 18771 KiB  
Article
Comparing Masticatory Performance of Maxillary Mini Dental Implant Overdentures, Complete Removable Dentures and Dentate Subjects
by Luc Van Doorne, Ben De Backer, Carine Matthys, Hugo De Bruyn and Stefan Vandeweghe
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(21), 5006; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10215006 - 27 Oct 2021
Cited by 3 | Viewed by 3063
Abstract
Background: Mini dental implant (MDI) overdenture rehabilitation for the edentulous maxilla is a valuable, less invasive and affordable treatment alternative for complete removable dentures (CRD). However, comparative quantification of masticatory performance in different oral conditions are scarce. Purpose: This study compares objective masticatory [...] Read more.
Background: Mini dental implant (MDI) overdenture rehabilitation for the edentulous maxilla is a valuable, less invasive and affordable treatment alternative for complete removable dentures (CRD). However, comparative quantification of masticatory performance in different oral conditions are scarce. Purpose: This study compares objective masticatory performance of dentate groups, maxillary CRD and MDI overdentures and subjective masticatory performance in maxillary CRD and MDI overdentures. Materials and Methods: Four groups were defined, age 20+ dentate dental students (DS), age 50+ complete dentate subjects (DP), age 50+ maxillary CRD or MDI overdentures/dentate mandible. Objective masticatory performance was evaluated by measuring circular Variance of Hue (VOH) or the mixture degree of two-color chewing gum (Hue-check View Gum® Test). Additionally, subjective masticatory comparison was investigated in the CRD and MDI groups, with a visual analogue scale (VAS) for different food consistencies and the Oral Health Related Quality of Life (OHRQL) OHIP-14 questionnaire. Results: The mean VOH was 0.11 (SD 0.50, range 0.05–0.27) for the dentate dental 20+ students, 0.13 (SD 0.08, range 0.03–0.31) for the 50+ dentate group (p = 0.774), 0.41 (SD 0.41, range 0.14–0.76) for the CRD group and 0.39 (SD 0.18, range 0.07–0.76) for the MDI group (p = 0.725). Based on the VAS scores, no improvement was found between the CRD and the MDI overdenture group (p > 0.050). The mean OHIP-14 total score was 12.10 (SD 15.87, range 0–56) for CRD, while the MDI group (p = 0.039) saw a significant improvement to 2.85 (SD 2.85, range 0–15). Conclusion: Comparable results in objective masticatory performance were registered in dentate 20+ and 50+ subjects with a remarkable inferior outcome for the CRD and MDI group. Compared to CRD, MDI overdentures revealed no substantial improvement in subjective and objective masticatory performance. However, for MDI a significant increase in OHRQL was apparent. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Restorative Dentistry: Recent Advances and Future Perspectives)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-3
Back to TopTop