Objectives: The goal of this retrospective study was to determine the significance and impact of several factors on the alveolar cleft bone grafting procedure. Materials and Methods: The medical records were reviewed. In addition, x-rays were checked. The size of every cleft was measured in this retrospective study. The analyzed factors included sex, age, type of cleft, size of the cleft, and the type of flap used in surgery. The patients were characterized into group A (no complications, Bergland scale 1 or 2), group B (complications or Bergland scale 3), or group C (failure cases). Statistical analysis was performed with a P-value set at 0.05. Results: There were 32 cases in group A, 26 in group B, and 9 in group C. Multinomial logistic regression showed an association between the type of the cleft and the size of the cleft, with the presence of complications, or achieving type 3 on the Bergland scale, with odds ratios of 5.118 and 6.000, respectively. The type of cleft was related to failure with an odds ratio of 4.833. Given a small sample, statistical analysis could not be performed to evaluate the relationship between the size of the cleft and group C. Age, sex, and the type of the flap were not significant factors. Conclusion The cleft size of more than 10 mm and bilateral clefts were listed regarding their effect on the procedure. Clinicians should not overlook these factors. In addition, patients must be informed of any risks that are present.

Objectives: The goal of this retrospective study was to determine the significance and impact of several factors on the alveolar cleft bone grafting procedure. Materials and Methods: The medical records were reviewed. In addition, x-rays were checked. The size of every cleft was measured in this retrospective study. The analyzed factors included sex, age, type of cleft, size of the cleft, and the type of flap used in surgery. The patients were characterized into group A (no complications, Bergland scale 1 or 2), group B (complications or Bergland scale 3), or group C (failure cases). Statistical analysis was performed with a P-value set at 0.05. Results: There were 32 cases in group A, 26 in group B, and 9 in group C. Multinomial logistic regression showed an association between the type of the cleft and the size of the cleft, with the presence of complications, or achieving type 3 on the Bergland scale, with odds ratios of 5.118 and 6.000, respectively. The type of cleft was related to failure with an odds ratio of 4.833. Given a small sample, statistical analysis could not be performed to evaluate the relationship between the size of the cleft and group C. Age, sex, and the type of the flap were not significant factors. Conclusion The cleft size of more than 10 mm and bilateral clefts were listed regarding their effect on the procedure. Clinicians should not overlook these factors. In addition, patients must be informed of any risks that are present.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate microstrains around two non-parallel implant-supported prostheses and different abutment connections and positions under vertical static load using strain gauges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 4 models simulating the mandibular unilateral free-end were fabricated. 8 implants (4.0 × 10 mm and 5.0 × 10 mm) were inserted in the second premolar, perpendicular to the occlusal plane, and the second molar, tilted at 15°. Four groups were analyzed: engaging and angled abutments (control group), both non-engaging abutments, both screw-and cement-retained prosthesis (SCRP) abutments, and engaging and non-engaging abutments. Strain gauges were placed buccally, lingually, mesially, and distally adjacent to each implant. The restoration was cement-retained in the control group and screw and cement-retained in the rest. Zirconia bridges were fixed on the abutment with NX3, and a 300 N vertical static load was applied. Microstrains were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Both non-engaging abutments showed the highest compressive microstrains (-52.975), followed by engaging, angled abutment (-25.239). SCRP-SCRP abutments had the lowest compressive microstrains (-14.505), while the engaging, non-engaging abutments showed tensile microstrains (0.418). Microstrains in SCRP-SCRP and engaging, non-engaging groups were significantly lower than in the control group (α = .05). Premolar areas showed compressive microstrains (-47.06), while molar sites had tensile microstrains (+0.91), with microstrains in premolars being significantly higher than in molar area (α = .05). CONCLUSION The types of abutment connections and positions may have a potential effect on microstrains at the implant-bone interface. SCRP-SCRP abutments could be an alternative to use in non-parallel implant-supported prostheses when two implants make an angle of no more than 20 degrees.

Impacted teeth are a frequent phenomenon encountered by every clinician. The artificial eruption of embedded teeth is the process of directing an impacted tooth into normal occlusion. This procedure is currently attracting attention, with the aim of finding the best technique to use according to each case. This article presents key information regarding impacted incisors, canines, and premolars. In addition, we describe the most common techniques to use for artificial eruption, the open and closed techniques. We review the literature concerning these techniques and outline how clinicians can manage every type of impacted tooth.
Bicuspid ; Incisor ; Surgery, Oral ; Tooth ; Tooth, Impacted

Dental implants have been utilized for many years to treat individuals with missing teeth. To optimize the long-term success rate of such implants, new designs, surfaces, and materials have been analyzed. It is important for the clinician to have a background in the field of implant surface design, to be familiar with the strengths and limitations of the available options, and to be aware of the alterations in surface structure that may occur following installation. This article provides a detailed review of the structure and the surface characteristics of dental implants, the modifications of implant surface, as well as the methods of evaluating implant surface structure. Moreover, it provides information concerning the structural changes that may take place at the time of dental implant placement. It is important for clinicians to be aware of such changes to plan and execute implant procedures with the highest possible success and implant survival rates.

Impacted teeth are a frequent phenomenon encountered by every clinician. The artificial eruption of embedded teeth is the process of directing an impacted tooth into normal occlusion. This procedure is currently attracting attention, with the aim of finding the best technique to use according to each case. This article presents key information regarding impacted incisors, canines, and premolars. In addition, we describe the most common techniques to use for artificial eruption, the open and closed techniques. We review the literature concerning these techniques and outline how clinicians can manage every type of impacted tooth.