Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Background: s/Aims: In recent years, many minimally invasive techniques have been introduced to reduce the number of ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), offering benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes. ArtiSential®is a new multi-degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instrument that incorporates the ergonomic features of robotic surgery, potentially overcoming the spatial limitations of laparoscopic surgery. ArtiSential® LC can be performed using only two ports. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of ArtiSential® LC with those of single-fulcrum LC. Methods: This retrospective study compared ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC among LCs performed for gallbladder (GB) stones at the same center, analyzing the basic characteristics of patients; intraoperative outcomes, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative GB rupture; and postoperative outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and postoperative pain. Results: A total of 88 and 63 patients underwent ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC for GB stones, respectively. Analysis showed that ArtiSential® LC resulted in significantly fewer cases of surgeries longer than 60 minutes (30 vs. 35 min, p = 0.009) and intraoperative GB ruptures (2 vs. 10, p = 0.007). In terms of postoperative outcomes, ArtiSential® LC showed better results in the respective visual analog scale (VAS) scores immediately after surgery (2.59 vs. 3.73, p < 0.001), and before discharge (1.44 vs. 2.02, p = 0.01). Conclusions ArtiSential® LC showed better results in terms of surgical outcomes, especially postoperative pain. Thus, ArtiSential®LC is considered the better option for patients, compared to single-fulcrum LC.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Background: s/Aims: In recent years, many minimally invasive techniques have been introduced to reduce the number of ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), offering benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes. ArtiSential®is a new multi-degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instrument that incorporates the ergonomic features of robotic surgery, potentially overcoming the spatial limitations of laparoscopic surgery. ArtiSential® LC can be performed using only two ports. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of ArtiSential® LC with those of single-fulcrum LC. Methods: This retrospective study compared ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC among LCs performed for gallbladder (GB) stones at the same center, analyzing the basic characteristics of patients; intraoperative outcomes, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative GB rupture; and postoperative outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and postoperative pain. Results: A total of 88 and 63 patients underwent ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC for GB stones, respectively. Analysis showed that ArtiSential® LC resulted in significantly fewer cases of surgeries longer than 60 minutes (30 vs. 35 min, p = 0.009) and intraoperative GB ruptures (2 vs. 10, p = 0.007). In terms of postoperative outcomes, ArtiSential® LC showed better results in the respective visual analog scale (VAS) scores immediately after surgery (2.59 vs. 3.73, p < 0.001), and before discharge (1.44 vs. 2.02, p = 0.01). Conclusions ArtiSential® LC showed better results in terms of surgical outcomes, especially postoperative pain. Thus, ArtiSential®LC is considered the better option for patients, compared to single-fulcrum LC.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

Background: s/Aims: In recent years, many minimally invasive techniques have been introduced to reduce the number of ports in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), offering benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and improved cosmetic outcomes. ArtiSential®is a new multi-degree-of-freedom articulating laparoscopic instrument that incorporates the ergonomic features of robotic surgery, potentially overcoming the spatial limitations of laparoscopic surgery. ArtiSential® LC can be performed using only two ports. This study aims to compare the surgical outcomes of ArtiSential® LC with those of single-fulcrum LC. Methods: This retrospective study compared ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC among LCs performed for gallbladder (GB) stones at the same center, analyzing the basic characteristics of patients; intraoperative outcomes, such as operative time, estimated blood loss, and intraoperative GB rupture; and postoperative outcomes, such as length of hospital stay, incidence of postoperative complications, and postoperative pain. Results: A total of 88 and 63 patients underwent ArtiSential® LC and single-fulcrum LC for GB stones, respectively. Analysis showed that ArtiSential® LC resulted in significantly fewer cases of surgeries longer than 60 minutes (30 vs. 35 min, p = 0.009) and intraoperative GB ruptures (2 vs. 10, p = 0.007). In terms of postoperative outcomes, ArtiSential® LC showed better results in the respective visual analog scale (VAS) scores immediately after surgery (2.59 vs. 3.73, p < 0.001), and before discharge (1.44 vs. 2.02, p = 0.01). Conclusions ArtiSential® LC showed better results in terms of surgical outcomes, especially postoperative pain. Thus, ArtiSential®LC is considered the better option for patients, compared to single-fulcrum LC.

Purpose: . This study evaluated the accuracy of implant impression techniques using scan healing abutments compared to conventional techniques. Materials and methods: . A mandibular model with implants at #34, 36, and 46 was used. Experiments were conducted for single implant and 3-unit bridge scenarios. Groups were as follows: Group IOS - Scan healing abutments were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Imp - Scan healing abutments were used, and impressions were taken with silicone material, followed by model scanning. Group Sb - Scan bodies were scanned with an intraoral scanner. Group Trans - Impressions were taken with transfer copings, and models were scanned. Each group was scanned 10 times, and deviations in central distance and angulation of analogs were measured. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests at a 95% confidence level. Results: . For single implants, there were no significant differences in distance deviation (P > .05). Angular deviation values were: IOS (0.24 ± 0.10°), Imp (0.19 ± 0.06°), Sb (0.38 ± 0.05°), and Trans (0.29 ± 0.06°), with Sb showing significantly larger values than IOS and Imp (P < .05). For bridges, distance deviation did not significantly differ (P > .05). Angular deviations were: IOS (0.21 ± 0.08°), Imp (0.21 ± 0.09°), Sb (0.25 ± 0.10°), and Trans (0.46 ± 0.19°), with Trans showing significantly larger values than the others (P < .05). Conclusion . Scan healing abutment techniques showed similar accuracy to traditional methods. They could be a viable alternative for single implant crowns or short-span fixed dental prostheses.

In fixed prosthodontic treatment of the maxillary anterior region, where high esthetics are required, it is crucial not only to achieve a successful prosthesis but also to form symmetrical and natural gingiva. To achieve esthetic gingiva, it is necessary to adjust the subgingival contour of the temporary prosthesis or to modify the base of pontic. However, during the transition from temporary to definitive prosthesis, the conventional method of removing the temporary prosthesis and taking an impression after gingival retraction often fails to accurately reproduce the gingival profile. In such cases, the gingiva is arbitrarily trimmed on the model to fabricate the definitive prosthesis, which reduces the predictability of esthetic treatment outcomes. This case report introduces methods to transfer the subgingival contour and the pontic base formed with the temporary prosthesis to the final model and definitive prosthesis through two cases.

Advancements in CAD-CAM technology have allowed for a variety of options in implant-supported fixed prosthesis restorations for completely edentulous patients. For patients with severe alveolar bone resorption, zirconia prosthetic restorations that include the gingival portion, such as implant-supported hybrid dentures, are possible, as well as monolithic zirconia prosthetic restorations in the form of crowns. The integration of digital technology in fixed prosthetic restoration using implants enables predictable treatment through diagnosis and virtual surgery by integrating the patient’s clinical and radiological information. In this case, the utilization of digital software allowed for the establishment of implants in appropriate positions, considering both the remaining alveolar bone and the final prosthesis. By designing both the maxillary removable prosthesis and the mandibular fixed prosthesis simultaneously in CAD software, bilateral balanced occlusion could be easily achieved. Furthermore, maintaining the initial interocclusal relationship from provisional restorations to final prostheses allowed for convenient transition while ensuring functional and aesthetic satisfaction.