PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 – 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.

PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 – 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.

PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 – 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of plasma treatment of sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) titanium implants on surface cleansing and osseointegration in a beagle model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: For morphological analysis and XPS analysis, scanning electron microscope and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy were used to analyze the surface topography and chemical compositions of implant before and after plasma treatment. For this animal experiment, twelve SLA titanium implants were divided into two groups:a control group (untreated implants) and a plasma group (implants treated with plasma). Each group was randomly located in the mandibular bone of the beagle dog (n = 6). After 8 weeks, the beagle dogs were sacrificed, and volumetric analysis and histometric analysis were performed within the region of interest. RESULTS: In morphological analysis, plasma treatment did not alter the implant surface topography or cause any physical damage. In XPS analysis, the atomic percentage of carbon at the inspection point before the plasma treatment was 34.09%. After the plasma treatment, it was reduced to 18.74%, indicating a 45% reduction in carbon. In volumetric analysis and histometric analysis, the plasma group exhibited relatively higher mean values for new bone volume (NBV), bone to implant contact (BIC), and inter-thread bone density (ITBD) compared to the control group. However, there was no significant difference between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Within the limits of this study, plasma treatment effectively eliminated hydrocarbons without changing the implant surface.

PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 – 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.

PURPOSE: This pilot study investigated the effect of surface roughness on osseointegration by comparing two types of commercial SLA-treated dental implants with different surface roughness levels: moderately rough (Sa = 1 – 2 µm) and rough surfaces (Sa > 2 µm). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two implant groups were studied: TS (rough surface) and ADD (moderately rough surface) groups. Surface characteristics were analyzed using optical profilometry and SEM. In vitro studies using BRITER cells assessed cell adhesion, proliferation, and osteogenic differentiation through CCK-8 assay and qRT-PCR for osteopontin (OPN), osteocalcin (OCN), and alkaline phosphatase (ALP) expression. The in vivo study involved 12 implants (six per group) placed in mandibular defects of two beagle dogs. After 8 weeks, histomorphometric analysis evaluated bone to implant contact (BIC) and inter-thread bone density (ITBD). Statistical analysis used Student’s t-test and two-way ANOVA for in vitro data, and Mann-Whitney U test for in vivo data. RESULTS: Surface analysis revealed Sa values of 2.50 ± 0.27 µm for the TS group and 1.80 ± 0.06 µm for the ADD group. In vitro studies showed no significant differences in cell adhesion and proliferation between the groups (P > .05). However, gene expression patterns differed, with ADD group showing higher OPN expression (P < .001) and TS group showing higher ALP expression (P < .01). The in vivo study revealed no statistically significant differences in BIC and ITBD between the two groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION Surface roughness influenced osteoblast differentiation in vitro, but did not significantly affect osseointegration outcomes in vivo. Both moderately rough and rough surfaces appeared to support comparable levels of osseointegration. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings and determine optimal implant surface characteristics.

PURPOSE: This prospective clinical study was conducted to evaluate the clinical usefulness of the freely detachable zirconia ball- and spring-retained implant prosthesis (BSRP) through a comparative analysis of screw- and cement-retained implant prosthesis (SCRP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multi-center, randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating the clinical usefulness of the detachable zirconia ball- and spring-retained implant prostheses was conducted. Sixty-four implant prostheses in 64 patients were examined. Periodic observational studies were conducted at 0, 3, 6, and 12 months after delivery of the implant prosthesis. Factors such as implant success rate, marginal bone resorption, periodontal pocket depth, plaque and bleeding index, and prosthetic complications were evaluated, respectively. RESULTS: During the 1-year observation period, all implants survived without functional problems and clinical mobility, showing a 100% implant success rate. Marginal bone resorption was significantly higher in the SCRP group than in the BSRP group only at the time of implant prosthesis delivery (P = .043). In all observation periods, periodontal pocket depth was slightly higher in the BSRP group than in the SCRP group, but there was no significant difference (P > .05). The modified plaque index (mPI) scores of both groups were moderate. Higher ratio of a score 2 in modified sulcus bleeding index (mBI) was observed in the BSRP group in the 6- and 12-months observation. CONCLUSION Within the limitations of this study, the newly developed zirconia ball- and spring-retained implant prosthesis could be considered as an applicable and predictable treatment method along with the existing screw- and cement-retained prosthesis.

PURPOSE: . This study aims to clinically compare the fitness and trueness of zirconia crowns fabricated by different combinations of open CAD-CAM systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . Total of 40 patients were enrolled in this study, and 9 different zirconia crowns were prepared per patient. Each crown was made through the cross-application of 3 different design software (EZIS VR, 3Shape Dental System, Exocad) with 3 different processing devices (Aegis HM, Trione Z, Motion 2). The marginal gap, absolute marginal discrepancy, internal gap(axial, line angle, occlusal) by a silicone replica technique were measured to compare the fit of the crown. The scanned inner and outer surfaces of the crowns were compared to CAD data using 3D metrology software to evaluate trueness. RESULTS: . There were significant differences in the marginal gap, absolute marginal discrepancy, axial and line angle internal gap among the groups (P < .05) in the comparison of fit. There was no statistically significant difference among the groups in terms of occlusal internal gap. The trueness ranged from 36.19 to 43.78 μm but there was no statistically significant difference within the groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION . All 9 groups showed clinically acceptable level of marginal gaps ranging from 74.26 to 112.20 μm in terms of fit comparison. In the comparison of trueness, no significant difference within each group was spotted. Within the limitation of this study, open CAD-CAM systems used in this study can be assembled properly to fabricate zirconia crown. [J Adv Prosthodont 2023;15:155-70]

Pathological wear across the entire dentition causes problems such as collapsed occlusal plane, reduced vertical dimension, anterior premature contact, inadequate anterior guidance, and tooth migration, thereby induce symptoms such as temporomandibular joint disorder, reduced masticatory efficiency, and tooth hypersensitivity. For the treatment of patients with excessive wear, evaluation of vertical dimension should be preceded along with analysis of the cause. The patient in this case was a 45-year-old female with a history of orthognathic surgery. Through clinical examination, radiographic examination, and model analysis, overall tooth wear, interdental spacing in the anterior maxillary region, retruded condylar position, and insufficient interocclusal space for prosthetic restoration were confirmed. Full mouth rehabilitation with increased vertical dimension was planned, the patient’s adaptation to the new vertical dimension was evaluated with a removable occlusal splint and temporary prosthesis, and cross-mounting was performed based on the temporary restoration to fabricate the definitive zirconia prosthesis, maintaining the adjusted vertical dimension. It showed satisfactory functional and esthetic results through stable restoration of the occlusal relationship.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in retention and wear pattern of Locator® and ADD-TOC attachments on a digital milled bar by performing chewing simulation and repeated insertion/removal of prostheses in fully edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Locator (Locator®; Zest Anchors Inc., Escondido, CA, USA) was selected as the control group and ADD-TOC (ADDTOC; PNUAdd Co., Ltd., Busan, Republic of Korea) as the experimental group. A CAD-CAM milled bar was mounted on a master model and 3 threaded holes for connecting a bar attachment was formed using a tap. Locator and ADD-TOC attachments were then attached to the milled bar. Simulated mastication and repeated insertion/removal were performed over 400,000 cyclic loadings and 1,080insertions/removals, respectively. Wear patterns on deformed attachment were investigated by field emission scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: For the ADD-TOC attachments, chewing simulation and repeated insertion/removal resulted in a mean initial retentive force of 24.43 ± 4.89 N, which were significantly lower than that of the Locator attachment, 34.33 ± 8.25 N (P < .05). Amounts of retention loss relative to baseline for the Locator and ADD-TOC attachments were 21.74 ± 7.07 and 8.98 ± 5.76 N (P < .05). CONCLUSION CAD-CAM milled bar with the ADD-TOC attachment had a lower initial retentive force than the Locator attachment. However, the ADD-TOC attachment might be suitable for long-term use as it showed less deformation and had a higher retentive force after simulated mastication and insertion/removal repetitions.