Dental Implant Surgery: Clinical Updates and Perspectives

A special issue of Journal of Clinical Medicine (ISSN 2077-0383). This special issue belongs to the section "Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Oral Medicine".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (29 April 2024) | Viewed by 1561

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Oral Rehabilitation, The Faculty of Medicine, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel
Interests: oral rehabilitation; dental restorative materials and techniques; periodontology; reconstructive treatment (bone reformation); dental implants; pediatric dentistry
Special Issues, Collections and Topics in MDPI journals

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The scope of this Special Issue in JCM entitled “Dental Implant Surgery: Clinical Updates and Perspectives" is to evaluate and improve evidence-based implant dentistry to include predictable, extended dental treatment values. We intend to cover a wide range of materials and techniques applied in all dental disciplines, including oral rehabilitation, periodontology, dental implantology, oral, and maxillofacial reconstruction and pediatric dentistry.

Modern pediatric treatments lead to enhanced outcomes, and new materials and techniques have been introduced and applied in clinical practice.

This Special Issue will be dedicated to all the rehabilitative materials and techniques used in implant dentistry, related to all dental Desplaines.

Prof. Dr. Joseph Nissan
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Clinical Medicine is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2600 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • oral rehabilitation
  • dental restorative materials and techniques
  • periodontology
  • reconstructive treatment (bone reformation)
  • dental implants
  • pediatric dentistry

Published Papers (1 paper)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

10 pages, 2692 KiB  
Article
The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study
by Asaf Shely, Diva Lugassy, Ophir Rosner, Eran Zanziper, Joseph Nissan, Shir Rachmiel, Yara Khoury and Gil Ben-Izhack
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(20), 6644; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/jcm12206644 - 20 Oct 2023
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 1266
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the inter-implant distance, inter-implant axis, and intra-implant axis of three implants in a straight line by using a laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS) with two different intra-oral scan bodies [...] Read more.
Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the inter-implant distance, inter-implant axis, and intra-implant axis of three implants in a straight line by using a laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS) with two different intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs). Methods: A 3D model was printed with internal hex implant analogs of three implants in positions 15#, 16#, and 17#. Two standard intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs) were used: MIS ISB (two-piece titanium) and Zirkonzhan ISB (two-piece titanium). Both ISBs were scanned using 7 Series dental wings (LBS) and 30 times using Primescan (IOS). For each scan, a stereolithography (STL) file was created and a comparison between all the scans was performed through superimposition of the STL files by using 3D analysis software (PolyWorks® 2020; InnovMetric, Québec, QC, Canada). A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed followed by a Mann–Whitney test (p < 0.05). Results: The change in inter-implant distance for the MIS ISB was significantly lower compared to the ZZ (p < 0.05). The change in intra-implant angle was significantly lower for the ZZ ISB compared to MIS (p < 0.05). The changes in inter-implant angle between the mesial and middle and between the middle and distal were significantly lower for MIS compared to ZZ in contrast to mesial to distal, which was significantly higher (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Both ISBs showed differences in all the parameters between the LBS and the IOS. The geometry of the scan abutment had an impact on the inter-implant distance as the changes in the inter-implant distance were significantly lower for the MIS ISB. The changes in the intra-implant angle were significantly lower for the ZZ ISB. There is a need for further research examining the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the trueness. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Dental Implant Surgery: Clinical Updates and Perspectives)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop