PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system by comparing with the conventional electronic system in recording condylar movements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six subjects with normal occlusion participated in the study. The CADIAX® 4 and Jaw Motion Analyzer (JMA) systems were used to record condylar movement trajectories during mandibular border movements (protrusive/retrusive, lateral, and wide mouth opening), with each movement repeated three times. Both systems used facebows and sensors to locate the condylar axis points and capture movement trajectory data. Paired t-tests were used for normally distributed data, while the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was applied to non-normally distributed data. The level of significance was set at α = .05. RESULTS: The maximum condylar displacement in the sagittal plane during mandibular border movements and the sagittal condylar inclination (SCI) values on both the left and right sides showed no significant difference between the two systems (P > .05). The Bennett angle (BA) values on both the left and right sides measured by the JMA system were significantly higher than those measured by the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). The comfort levels of the JMA system were significantly higher than the CADIAX® 4 system (P < .05). CONCLUSION Through this study, it was found that the accuracy of the ultrasonic jaw tracking system was comparable with the conventional electronic system, except for the Bennett angle measurement. In terms of comfort and ease of use, the ultrasonic jaw tracking system is more favored.

In recent years, clinicians have paid more attention to the biological and esthetic effects of the 2 mm keratinized mucosa width (KMW) around dental implant. How to increase the keratinized mucosa is the focus of clinicians. While the free gingival graft (FGG) is still the gold standard of keratinized mucosa augmentation, alveolar ridge preservation (ARP), connective tissue graft (CTG) and apically positioned flap (APF) can also be used to obtain more than 2 mm keratinized mucosa width when they are used before implantation, with implantation, within the implant-healing phase, with second stage of implantation or after rehabilitation according to different indications. This article comprehensively summarizes the influencing factors of timing and surgical procedures for keratinized mucosa augmentation, providing guidance for clinicians to treat peri-implant keratinized mucosa deficiencies.

The stability of marginal bone level is an important factor in ensuring long-term good clinical efficacy of implantation.The design of implant-abutment interface(IAI)is of considerable importance,including whether undergoing multiple abutment disconnection,whether platform switching is used,connection type,connection torque,and connection material differences.These fac-tors can affect the micro gap and micro movement of the connection interface,which change the size of micro leakage and mechanical stability,thereby affecting the long-term clinical efficacy of implants.This article presents a detailed review of the progress of research on different designs in implant-abutment interface,in order to provide a theoretical basis for the selection and operation of abutments in clinical diagnosis and treatment.

Due to advances in digital technology, intraoral impressions have been increasingly used to fabricate implant restorations because of its simplicity, high efficiency, comfortableness and convenience. In clinical practice, the accuracy of intraoral impressions depends on various factors, including scanner technique, status of dentition and implants, auxiliary devices, materials and environment, which might influence its accuracy and limit its application. When applied to patients missing more teeth, its accuracy may be insufficient. It is suggested that intraoral impressions be used cautiously when there are multiple and far apart implants and that the scan body not be tightened excessively and that maintain appropriate environmental conditions. In this article, we have reviewed recent relevant literature and the factors affecting the accuracy of intraoral impressions for implant restoration.

The implant-supported prosthesis has gradually become the preferred treatment for patients with partial edentulous or complete edentulous. Causes for the implant failure have been discussed in the majority of studies conducted in recent years, while their risk factors are still controversial. Patient factors (gender, age, smoking, osteoporosis, diabetes, medication, periodontitis and bruxism), clinical parameters (implant area, bone quality, implant size) and doctor factors (surgical-related factors, prosthesis-related factors) will all affect implant failure. This article presents typical clinical cases and reviews the potential risk factors for dental implant failure, in order to provide guidance for clinical practice.

Considering the substantial role played by dendritic cells (DCs) in the immune system to bridge innate and adaptive immunity, studies on DC-mediated immunity toward biomaterials principally center on their adjuvant effects in facilitating the adaptive immunity of codelivered antigens. However, the effect of the intrinsic properties of biomaterials on dendritic cells has not been clarified. Recently, researchers have begun to investigate and found that biomaterials that are nonadjuvant could also regulate the immune function of DCs and thus affect subsequent tissue regeneration. In the case of proteins adsorbed onto biomaterial surfaces, their intrinsic properties can direct their orientation and conformation, forming "biomaterial-associated molecular patterns (BAMPs)". Thus, in this review, we focused on the intrinsic physiochemical properties of biomaterials in the absence of antigens that affect DC immune function and summarized the underlying signaling pathways. Moreover, we preliminarily clarified the specific composition of BAMPs and the interplay between some key molecules and DCs, such as heat shock proteins (HSPs) and high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1). This review provides a new direction for future biomaterial design, through which modulation of host immune responses is applicable to tissue engineering and immunotherapy.
Biocompatible Materials/metabolism* ; Dendritic Cells/metabolism* ; Tissue Engineering ; Immunomodulation ; Adaptive Immunity