The Experts below are selected from a list of 1914 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
G Fritzsche - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
CEREC omnicam and the virtual articulator a case report
International journal of computerized dentistry, 2013Co-Authors: G FritzscheAbstract:This case report demonstrates how two opposing teeth were restored with full crowns using CEREC software version 4.2 (pre-release version). In addition, an anterior tooth was provided with a veneer. The situation was scanned with the CEREC Omnicam. The new virtual articulator was used for the design to obtain correct dynamic contacts. The CEREC Omnicam can scan the entire situation prior to preparation without the help of an assistant, as no surface pretreatment is necessary. The locations of the occlusal contacts can be marked with articulating paper and are indicated on the virtual models. Selective deletion of individual areas allows the prepared teeth to be rescanned, considerably speeding up the workflow. A video demonstration is available of the acquisition and design procedure.
-
efficient quadrant restoration with the new CEREC software
International journal of computerized dentistry, 2010Co-Authors: G FritzscheAbstract:Quadrant restoration has been an integral part of the software since the CEREC 3-D program was introduced. In the new 3.80 version, the program also offers the option of scanning the opposite jaw and correlating it with the prepared jaw by a buccal scan. This innovation is especially appropriate when several teeth in a quadrant are being restored. The procedure is described in detail in this article.
-
treatment of a single tooth gap with a CEREC 3d crown on an implant a case report
International journal of computerized dentistry, 2004Co-Authors: G FritzscheAbstract:The present article describes the procedure for inserting a CEREC 3D crown on an implant. The current software version R 1503 and the new VITA Mark II TriLuxe blocks are used in this case.
Tanya Mathew - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the ctsa external reviewer exchange consortium CEREC engagement and efficacy
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2019Co-Authors: Margare Schneide, April Agaporo, Jennife A Croke, Adam Davidso, Pam Dillo, Ailee Dinkjia, Madeline Gibso, Nia Indelicato, Amy J Jenkins, Tanya MathewAbstract:Author(s): Schneider, Margaret; Bagaporo, April; Croker, Jennifer A; Davidson, Adam; Dillon, Pam; Dinkjian, Aileen; Gibson, Madeline; Indelicato, Nia; Jenkins, Amy J; Mathew, Tanya; McCoy, Renee; Ranu, Hardeep; Zheng, Kai | Abstract: Introduction:Many institutions evaluate applications for local seed funding by recruiting peer reviewers from their own institutional community. Smaller institutions, however, often face difficulty locating qualified local reviewers who are not in conflict with the proposal. As a larger pool of reviewers may be accessed through a cross-institutional collaborative process, nine Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs formed a consortium in 2016 to facilitate reviewer exchanges. Data were collected to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the consortium. Methods:The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC) has been supported by a custom-built web-based application that facilitates the process and tracks the efficiency and productivity of the exchange. Results:All nine of the original CEREC members remain actively engaged in the exchange. Between January 2017 and May 2019, CEREC supported the review process for 23 individual calls for proposals. Out of the 412 reviews requested, 368 were received, for a fulfillment ratio of 89.3%. The yield on reviewer invitations has remained consistently high, with approximately one-third of invitations being accepted, and of the reviewers who agreed to provide a review, 88.3% submitted a complete review. Surveys of reviewers and pilot program administrators indicate high satisfaction with the process. Conclusions:These data indicate that a reviewer exchange consortium is feasible, adds value to participating partners, and is sustainable over time.
S Reich - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
inlab and CEREC connect virtual contacts in maximum intercuspation compared with original contacts an in vitro study
International journal of computerized dentistry, 2012Co-Authors: S K Nemli, S Wolfa, S ReichAbstract:PURPOSE The aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of inLab and CEREC Connect software in simulating the maximum intercuspal contacts in comparison to the real situation on the respective gypsum casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ten pairs of maxillary and mandibular casts were mounted in articulators in maximum intercuspal position. The contacts of the gypsum casts were marked and digital photographs of the mandibular casts were taken. Digital impressions of arches were made using two different software packages; inLab (Version 3.83) and CEREC Connect (Version 3.83) using the CEREC Acquisition Center. The intercuspal position of the teeth was captured by buccal images. Screenshots of the virtual casts showing the occlusal contacts were saved. The digital photographs of the contacts of the cast and the screenshots of the occlusal contacts were superimposed using an image processing program. The number of contacts of the virtual mandibular models that were identical with the contacts of the gypsum casts were determined and calculated as percentages in relation to the gypsum cast contacts, which were set as 100%. The null hypothesis tested was that the CEREC connect software delivers contacts that are closer to the real situation than contacts created with the inLab software. RESULTS CEREC Connect showed a median percentage of 41.6% and Inlab a median percentage of 31.9%. The Wilcoxon test revealed statistically significant differences between the inLab software and CEREC Connect. Especially at the contra-lateral side of that side where the virtual buccal registration was done, the contacts showed the greatest deviations from the original. CONCLUSION CEREC Connect more precisely virtually simulated the real contacts than did inLab when scanning full-arch dentitions.
-
a comparison of the fabrication times of all ceramic partial crowns CEREC 3d vs ips empress
International journal of computerized dentistry, 2009Co-Authors: S Gozdowski, S ReichAbstract:UNLABELLED Apart from precision, the time factor plays a decisive role in the fabrication of all-ceramic dental restorations. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare two all-ceramic systems with regard to the time required for the fabrication of partial crowns [MODB]. The null hypothesis tested was that the fabrication times of CAD/CAM generated partial crowns are shorter than the fabrication times of partial crowns manufactured in the laboratory. MATERIALS AND METHODS In sixteen model pairs mounted in the articulator, which corresponded to different clinical situations, tooth 36 was prepared for an all-ceramic partial crown [MODB]. With the CEREC3D method [CHAIR], the fabrication of the restoration was simulated directly on the "phantom patient". The IPS Empress system [LAB] was used forthe indirectfabrication method via an impression of the phantom patient. Both methods were used for each preparation. The adhesive luting procedure was not simulated and, therefore, not measured. RESULTS The mean processing times [hh:mm:ss] were 00:35:05 (SD +/- 03:27 min) for the CEREC method and 04:17:54 (SD +/- 26:01 min) for the Empress method. The mean time on the phantom patient for process-induced activities was 11:47 minutes (SD +/- 02:08 min) for the CEREC method and 03:58 minutes (SD +/- 02:50 min) for the Empress method. DISCUSSION Time expenditure for fabrication is only one aspect in order to assess the suitability of a restoration system. Both methods enable the dentist to provide high quality all ceramic restorations. Although the Empress method showed a time advantage of 65% during the fitting phase and occlusal grinding-in on the phantom patient in comparison to the CEREC method, the time spent during the laboratory phase has to be considered as well.
Margare Schneide - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the ctsa external reviewer exchange consortium CEREC engagement and efficacy
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2019Co-Authors: Margare Schneide, April Agaporo, Jennife A Croke, Adam Davidso, Pam Dillo, Ailee Dinkjia, Madeline Gibso, Nia Indelicato, Amy J Jenkins, Tanya MathewAbstract:Author(s): Schneider, Margaret; Bagaporo, April; Croker, Jennifer A; Davidson, Adam; Dillon, Pam; Dinkjian, Aileen; Gibson, Madeline; Indelicato, Nia; Jenkins, Amy J; Mathew, Tanya; McCoy, Renee; Ranu, Hardeep; Zheng, Kai | Abstract: Introduction:Many institutions evaluate applications for local seed funding by recruiting peer reviewers from their own institutional community. Smaller institutions, however, often face difficulty locating qualified local reviewers who are not in conflict with the proposal. As a larger pool of reviewers may be accessed through a cross-institutional collaborative process, nine Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs formed a consortium in 2016 to facilitate reviewer exchanges. Data were collected to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of the consortium. Methods:The CTSA External Reviewer Exchange Consortium (CEREC) has been supported by a custom-built web-based application that facilitates the process and tracks the efficiency and productivity of the exchange. Results:All nine of the original CEREC members remain actively engaged in the exchange. Between January 2017 and May 2019, CEREC supported the review process for 23 individual calls for proposals. Out of the 412 reviews requested, 368 were received, for a fulfillment ratio of 89.3%. The yield on reviewer invitations has remained consistently high, with approximately one-third of invitations being accepted, and of the reviewers who agreed to provide a review, 88.3% submitted a complete review. Surveys of reviewers and pilot program administrators indicate high satisfaction with the process. Conclusions:These data indicate that a reviewer exchange consortium is feasible, adds value to participating partners, and is sustainable over time.
N Jedynakiewicz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
CEREC science research and clinical application
Compendium of continuing education in dentistry, 2001Co-Authors: N Jedynakiewicz, Nicolas MartiAbstract:Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacture (CAD/CAM), as embodied in the CEREC system, enables the fabrication of high-quality esthetic ceramic restorations chairside. Resin cements are used to complete the clinical process, providing a high-strength, stress-free adhesive assembly. The current generation of CEREC technology can be used to create restorations with a repeatable 50-micron adhesive interface width. Systematic analysis of the literature on clinical trials of CEREC restorations indicates a high level of clinical success. CEREC technology is compatible with contemporary, conservative cavity preparation design and limits pulpal trauma by completing complex restorations in a single visit. The occlusal form of CEREC restorations can be machined with full regard to the patient's occlusion, using functionally generated pathway recordings.
-
interface dimensions of CEREC 2 mod inlays
Dental Materials, 2000Co-Authors: Nicolas Marti, N JedynakiewiczAbstract:Abstract Objectives: To quantify the width of the cement interface between ceramic inlays generated by the CEREC-2 CAD–CAM system and the tooth, and to determine the effect of cement viscosity on the interface width. Methods: Standardised MOD cavities were cut in 15 human premolar teeth using a custom paralleling device. A ceramic inlay was made with a CEREC-2 CAD–CAM machine for each tooth. The inlays were cemented using one of three resin-based composite systems of varying viscosity; a hybrid microfilled posterior composite, a compomer restorative and a dual-cure luting composite. The teeth were subsequently sectioned and measurements were taken at 21 key points with the aid of an image-analysis light microscopy system. Results: Statistical significance tests were applied to examine for difference in interface dimensions at specific points within each of the cement-groups and amongst groups. The interface space at the occlusal walls has a distinct wedge shape, being narrower at the external interface (50 μm, SD 15) than internally (211 μm, SD 38). There is no statistically significant difference in the interface dimensions of the gingival floor between the boxes that lie above and below the CEJ. There is no statistically significant difference in the width of the interface at any given point between the three cement groups. Significance: There is a significant improvement in the fit of CEREC-2 restorations when compared with the original CEREC system. Cements of varying viscosity (within the measured range) may be used for cementation of these inlays, without adversely affecting the width of the interface. Caution must be exercised with light-activated composite cements to ensure adequate transmission of light through the ceramic and the underlying composite cement.
-
clinical performance of CEREC ceramic inlays a systematic review
Dental Materials, 1999Co-Authors: Nicolas Marti, N JedynakiewiczAbstract:Abstract Objective: This systematic review of clinical trials seeks to identify the clinical performance of intra-coronal CEREC restorations luted with an adhesive composite technique. The focus of the review is to establish the survival rate of these restorations and to identify the factors that may cause them to fail. Method: A comprehensive literature search was undertaken, spanning from the year of introduction of the technology—1986 to 1997. This review identifies universal indicators of the clinical performance of intra-coronal CEREC restorations luted with an adhesive composite technique. Throughout the critical appraisal, each individual study was analysed identifying the aims, the methodology and materials used and the results obtained. Results: 29 clinical reports were identified in the search. The systematic analysis reduced the focus of review to 15 studies. The data available establishes ceramic intra-coronal restorations machined by the CEREC system as a clinically successful restorative method with a mean survival rate of 97.4% over a period of 4.2 years. The review also highlights the reasons and the rates of failure for this type of restoration. The predominant reasons for failures are fracture of the ceramic, fracture of the supporting tooth, postoperative hypersensitivity and wear of the interface lute. Significance: Machinable ceramics, as used by the CEREC system provide a useful restoration with a high success rate. These restorations are color stable and wear at a clinically acceptable rate. Wear of the luting composite on occlusal surfaces leads to the phenomenon of submargination. Ceramic fracture, wear at the interface and post-operative hypersensitivity remain a problem which require further investigation.