Call Us Today
To evaluate the fit of single crowns fabricated using conventional, digital, or cast digitization methods.
Materials and Methods
One subject with a peg‐shaped maxillary lateral incisor was selected in this study. Tooth preparation for an all‐ceramic crown was performed and 10 conventional poly(vinyl siloxane) impressions, and 10 digital impressions using an intraoral scanner were made. Each working cast was scanned using a laboratory scanner and an intraoral scanner. Four groups were tested Group 1: conventional impressions. Group 2: cast laboratory scans. Group 3: cast scans using intraoral scanner. Group 4: direct intraoral scans. For group 1, heat‐pressed glass ceramic crowns (IPS e.max Press) were fabricated using casts produced from the conventional impressions. For groups 2‐4, crowns were milled using ceramic blocks (IPS e.max CAD). Ten crowns were fabricated for each group. Marginal and internal gaps were measured using a replica technique. Replicas were sectioned mesiodistally and buccolingually and were observed under a stereomicroscope. Three measurements were selected for each cut: occlusal, axial, and marginal. Statistical analysis was performed using two‐way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests.
For each replica, 6 measurements were made for the mesiodistal and the same for the buccolingual cuts, producing 12 measurement points per crown (4 measurements for marginal, 4 for axial, 4 for occlusal), 120 measurements for each group (40 measurements for marginal, 40 for axial, 40 for occlusal), and 480 measurements in total. Two‐way ANOVA revealed location to be a significant factor (p = 0.001). No significant differences among groups (p = 0.456), and no interactions between groups and locations (p = 0.221) were found. Means for the occlusal site were significantly larger than other sites in most group combinations, while the difference between the marginal and axial sites was not significant. No significant differences among groups were found for each measurement. The marginal gaps ranged from 125.46 ± 25.39 μm for group 3 to 135.59 ± 24.07 μm for group 4. The smallest axial mean was in group 1 (98.10 ± 18.77 μm), and the largest was 127.25 ± 19.79 μm in group 4. The smallest occlusal mean was in group 2 (166.53 ± 36.51 μm), and the largest occlusal mean was in group 3 (203.32 ± 80.24 μm).
Ceramic crowns, which were made using all‐digital approach or cast digitization by a laboratory or intraoral scanner had comparable fit to those produced by conventional approach.
Statement of problem
Material and methods
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine whether periodontal disease and poor oral health behavior predict 10-year general CVD risk using the Framingham Risk Score.
Methods: Patients older than 30 years with no CVD history (n = 8370) were selected using cross-sectional study data from the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in 2013 and 2014. To reduce selection bias in this population-based study, propensity score matching analysis was used with SPSS and R programs to compare CVD risk.
Results: Overall, 39.2% of the study population (n = 3277) had a global CVD risk of 10% or greater. In the low- and at-risk groups, 20.7% and 45.3% of patients, respectively, were diagnosed with periodontal disease by a dentist. Moreover, 43.2% and 62.8% of the low- and at-risk group patients, respectively, brushed teeth less than 3 times a day. After 1:1 propensity score matching of the low-risk (n = 1135) and at-risk (n = 1135) groups, bivariate analyses showed that a diagnosis of periodontal disease and less frequent toothbrushing were associated with a higher CVD risk (P < .001). Logistic regression analysis also showed that patients having periodontal disease and who brushed teeth less frequently were 1.38 and 1.33 times, respectively, more likely to be at risk of CVD (P < .001).
Conclusion: Education on periodontitis management and oral hygiene behavior should be included, when strategies for public risk reduction of CVD are developed.
Participants and methods
What you recommend: interproximal brushes. What the patient hears: little tree flossers. Eep! But there are problems with stocking dental products in the office, too. So what’s a conscientious practice to do? The e-commerce age has some answers.