The aim of these in vitro studies was to determine and compare the mechanical and tribological performance of two commercially available thermoplastic materials, namely BioHPP and Biocetal, used in dental prosthetics. In order to perform the comparative tests of both materials, the dog-bone shaped samples were formed by an injection molding process as in standard polymer materials research, wherein Biocetal samples constituted the research group, and BioHPP samples served as a control group. In the presented studies, their mechanical parameters were reported and analyzed: namely, Shore’s hardness, unnotched impact strength, tensile strength, flexural strength, as well as abrasive wear resistance, obtained within appropriate tribological and mechanical tests. The Shapiro–Wilk test, Q–Q plot analysis, Grubbs test and Student’s t-test (p < 0.05) were used to statistically evaluate the results. The experimental results revealed that BioHPP material is characterized by higher hardness, impact strength, bending strength, and also lower “wet” abrasion wear if compared to Biocetal performance. However, it is subject to higher abrasive wear under “dry” conditions and reveals higher stiffness as well as lower ability to deform, which could affect a patient’s comfort during application. BioHPP, despite being a high-performance polymer material, also has some drawbacks that may affect the poorer long-term use of dentures in people producing less saliva.

The aim of this narrative literature review is to present the possibilities of using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and 3D dental scanners to prepare comprehensive, interdisciplinary treatment plans. Scanners are instruments whose usage seems to be a key element of modern digital dentistry. Their importance in orthodontic treatment with overlay appliances, planning modern prosthetic treatments (CAD/CAM) and implantology cannot be overestimated. These scanners allow for accurate imaging of the tooth structures and their positioning independently in the maxilla and mandible as well as in the occlusion. As a result, dentists can plan treatment, e.g., in the case of the need to implant dental implants, prosthetic crowns or orthodontic braces. Dentistry was revolutionized to a similar extent by the introduction of CBCT to everyday diagnostics, which is the most advanced imaging technology that provides even more detailed images in 3 dimensions. Its use has enabled a wider and more precise range of diagnostics, which in turn has improved the quality of multidisciplinary treatment planning. This paper explains how scanners and CBCT can be used in orthodontics and prosthetics based on the articles found in 3 databases: PubMed, Scopus and Embase. The review included 28 articles on the aforementioned topics and was presented with a brief description of the content of each article.

OBJECTIVES:This study was aimed at comparing the mechanical parameters of ceramics made using the addition and subtraction technique. METHODS:A search was performed on four search engines on 5th April 2023. Quality assessment was performed using study type-specific scales. Where possible, a meta-analysis was performed. SOURCES:Data were extracted from four search engines: PubMed, PubMed Central, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus. STUDY SELECTION:The search strategy identified 686 potential articles. 19 papers were subject to qualitative analysis, and data from 11 papers were meta-analysed. The included studies were of high or medium quality. All included papers were in-vitro studies. No clinical trials were found in the literature. SIGNIFICANCE:Ceramics made in the additive technology in terms of mechanical parameters can compete with ceramics made in the milling technology. There are no clinical studies yet that would indicate the use of this type of material for permanent restorations in patients. Studies presented in the literature vary greatly in terms of study design and reporting of results. The research did not receive external funding.

Background: This in vitro study set out to find out how well oral cavity-dwelling bacteria can form biofilms and adhere on the surfaces of zirconium oxide samples created by 3D printing and milling technologies. Methods: 5 strains of microorganisms were used for the study, and 40 zirconium oxide samples were prepared, which were divided into two groups (n = 20)—20 samples produced using removal technology comprised the control group, while 20 samples produced by 3D printing technology comprised the test group. The prepared samples were placed in culture media of bacteria and fungi that naturally occur in the oral cavity. Then, the intensity of biofilm build-up on the samples was determined using qualitative and quantitative methods. The results for both materials were compared with each other. Results: No variations in the degree of biofilm deposition on zirconium oxide samples were found for the microorganisms Streptococcus mutans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterococcus faecalis, and Staphylococcus aureus. For Candida albicans fungi, more intense biofilm deposition was observed on samples made using 3D printing technology, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The biofilm accumulation intensity of ceramics produced by additive technology is comparable to that of milled zirconium oxide, which supports the material’s broader use in clinical practice from a microbiological perspective. This ceramic has demonstrated its ability to compete with zirconium oxide produced by milling techniques in in vitro experiments, but sadly, no in vivo tests have yet been found to determine how this material will function in a patient’s oral cavity.

Background: The aim of this in vitro study was to determine the mechanical and functional properties of zirconium oxide ceramics made using 3D printing technology and ceramics produced using conventional dental milling machines. Methods: Forty zirconia samples were prepared for this study: the control group consisted of 20 samples made using milling technology, and the test group consisted of 20 samples made using 3D printing technology. Their surface parameters were measured, and then their mechanical parameters were checked and compared. Density, hardness, flexural strength and compressive strength were tested by performing appropriate in vitro tests. After the strength tests, a comparative analysis of the geometric structure of the surfaces of both materials was performed again. Student’s t-test was used to evaluate the results (p < 0.01). Results: Both ceramics show comparable values of mechanical parameters, and the differences are not statistically significant. The geometric structure of the sample surfaces looks very similar. Only minor changes in the structure near the crack were observed in the AM group. Conclusion: Ceramics made using additive technology have similar mechanical and surface parameters to milled zirconium oxide, which is one of the arguments for the introduction of this material into clinical practice. This in vitro study has shown that this ceramic can compete with zirconium made using CAD/CAM (Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing) methods.