MATERIALS AND METHODS: An auricular prosthesis, a complete denture, and anterior and posterior crowns were constructed using conventional methods and laser scanned to create computerized 3D meshes. The meshes were optimized independently by four computer-aided design software (Meshmixer, Meshlab, Blender, and SculptGL) to 100%, 90%, 75%, 50%, and 25% levels of original file size. Upon optimization, the following parameters were virtually evaluated and compared; mesh vertices, file size, mesh surface area (SA), mesh volume (V), interpoint discrepancies (geometric similarity based on virtual point overlapping), and spatial similarity (volumetric similarity based on shape overlapping). The influence of software and optimization on surface area and volume of each prosthesis was evaluated independently using multiple linear regression.

RESULTS: There were clear observable differences in vertices, file size, surface area, and volume. The choice of software significantly influenced the overall virtual parameters of auricular prosthesis [SA: F(4,15) = 12.93, R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001. V: F(4,15) = 9.33, R2 = 0.64, p < 0.001] and complete denture [SA: F(4,15) = 10.81, R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001. V: F(4,15) = 3.50, R2 = 0.34, p = 0.030] across optimization levels. Interpoint discrepancies were however limited to <0.1mm and volumetric similarity was >97%.

METHODS: Forty direct impressions of a mandibular reference model fitted with six dental implants and multibase abutments were made using VPES and PE, and implant casts were poured (N = 20). The VPES and PE groups were split into four subgroups of five each, based on splinting type: (a) no splinting; (b) bite registration polyether; (c) bite registration addition silicone; and (d) autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The accuracy of implant-abutment replica positions was calculated on the experimental casts, in terms of interimplant distances in the x, y, and z-axes, using a coordinate measuring machine; values were compared with those measured on the reference model. Data were analyzed using non-parametrical Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at α = .05.

RESULTS: The differences between the two impression materials, VPES and PE, regardless of splinting type, were not statistically significant (P>.05). Non-splinting and splinting groups were also not significantly different for both PE and VPES (P>.05).

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with implants were included in this study and implants were assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA). Bone levels of the implants were assessed by measuring mesial and distal bone levels from the periapical radiograph, and soft tissue was assessed from probing depth using a periodontal probe. Implants were assessed for stability and probing depth at pre-loading, at 3 months and 6 months post-loading. RFA and probing depth were statistically compared from different time points. Correlation of probing depth and marginal bone loss with implant stability was also determined.

RESULTS: The average change in implant stability quotient (ISQ) measurements from pre-loading to 6 months post-loading was found to be statistically significant (p <0.005). The average probing depth reduced from 1.767 mm at pre-loading to 1.671 mm at post-loading 3 months, and 1.600 mm at post-loading 6 months. At 6 months of function, radiographic examination yielded 0.786 mm mesial bone loss and 0.8 mm distal bone loss. It was found to be statistically significant (p <0.005) but within an acceptable range. No significant correlation was found between implant stability and bone loss; and implant stability and probing depth.

CONCLUSION: The study revealed an increasing trend in implant stability values with the time that indicates successful osseointegration. Increasing mean values for mesial and distal bone loss were also found.