Introduction: The term 3D printing is commonly used to depict an assembling method whereby the final form of an object is the result of the addition of different layers to build the frame of an object. This procedure is more accurately portrayed as additive manufacturing and is likewise alluded to as fast prototyping. The term 3D printing, in any case, is generally new and has been an active part of current developments in Dentistry. Much publicity encompasses the evolution of 3D printing, which is hailed as an innovation that will perpetually change CAM manufacturing, including in the dental sector. This review is the first part in a 3D Printing series that looks at the history of 3D Printing, the technologies available and reviews the literature relating to the accuracy of these technologies. Conclusions: The recent advancement in digital dentistry to incorporate these tools has modernised dental practices by paving the way for computer-aided design (CAD) technology and rapid prototyping. The use of 3D printing has led to 3D digital models produced with intraoral scanners (IOS), which can be manipulated easily for diagnosis, treatment planning, mockups, and a multitude of other uses. Combining 3D Printing with a 3D intraoral scan eliminates the need for physical storage but makes it to retrieve a 3D models for use within all dental modalities.

Introduction: The current generation of 3D printers are lighter, cheaper, and smaller, making them more accessible to the chairside digital dentist than ever before. 3D printers in general in the industrial and chairside setting can work with various types of materials including, metals, ceramics, and polymers. Evidence presented in many studies show that an ideal material used for dental restorations is characterised by several properties related to durability, cost-effectiveness, and high performance. This review is the second part in a 3D Printing series that looks at the literature on material science and applications for these materials in 3D printing as well as a discussion on the potential further development and future evolution in 3D printing materials. Conclusions: Current materials in 3D printing provide a wide range of possibilities for providing more predictable workflows as well as improving efficiency through less wasteful additive manufacturing in CAD/CAM procedures. Incorporating a 3D printer and a digital workflow into a dental practice is challenging but the wide range of manufacturing options and materials available mean that the dentist should be well prepared to treat patients with a more predictable and cost effective treatment pathway. As 3D printing continues to become a commonplace addition to chair side dental clinics, the evolution of these materials, in particular reinforced PMMA, resin incorporating zirconia and glass reinforced polymers offer increased speed and improved aesthetics that will likely replace subtractive manufacturing milling machines for most procedures.

(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the full arch scan accuracy (precision and trueness) of nine digital intra-oral scanners and four lab scanners. Previous studies have compared the accuracy of some intra-oral scanners, but as this is a field of quickly developing technologies, a more up-to-date study was needed to assess the capabilities of currently available models.; (2) Methods: The present in vitro study compared nine different intraoral scanners (Omnicam 4.6; Omnicam 5.1; Primescan; CS 3600; Trios 3; Trios 4; Runyes; i500 and DL206) as well as four lab light scanners (Einscan SE; 300e; E2 and Ineos X5) to investigate the accuracy of each scanner by examining the overall trueness and precision. Ten aligned and cut scans from each of the intra-oral and lab scanners in the in vitro study were brought into CloudCompare. A comparison was made with the master STL using the CloudCompare 3D analysis best-fit algorithm. The results were recorded along with individual standard deviation and a colorimetric map of the deviation across the surface of the STL mesh; a comparison was made to the master STL, quantified at specific points. ; (3) Results: In the present study, the Primescan had the best overall trueness (17.3 ± 4.9). Followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the Trios 4 (20.8 ± 6.2), i500 (25.2 ± 7.3), CS3600 (26.9 ± 15.9), Trios 3 (27.7 ± 6.8), Runyes (47.2 ± 5.4), Omnicam 5.1 (55.1 ± 9.5), Omnicam 4.6 (57.5 ± 3.2) and Launca DL206 (58.5 ± 22.0). Regarding the lab light scanners, the Ineos X5 had the best overall trueness with (0.0 ± 1.9). Followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the 3Shape E2 (3.6 ± 2.2), Up3D 300E (12.8 ± 2.7), and Einscan SE (14.9 ± 9.5); (4) Conclusions: This study confirms that all current generations of intra-oral digital scanners can capture a reliable, reproducible full arch scan in dentate patients. Out of the intra-oral scanners tested, no scanner produced results significantly similar in trueness to the Ineos X5. However, the Primescan was the only one to be statistically of a similar level of trueness to the 3Shape E2 lab scanner. All scanners in the study had mean trueness of under 60-micron deviation. While this study can compare the scanning accuracy of this sample in a dentate arch, the scanning of a fully edentulous arch is more challenging. The accuracy of these scanners in edentulous cases should be examined in further studies.

Accurate expression of bracket prescription is important for successful orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital scan images of brackets produced by four different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in terms of the height, position, and angle of the bracket slot when scanning the surface of dental model attached with bracket materials made from different composition of materials. Brackets made from stainless steel, polycrystalline alumina, composite and composite/stainless steel slot were considered, which have been scanned from 4 different IOSs (Primescan, Trios, CS3600 and i500). SEM images were used as references. Each bracket axis was set in the reference scan image, and the axis was set identically by superimposing with the IOS image, and then only the brackets were divided and analyzed. The difference between the manufacturer's nominal torque and bracket slot base angle was 0.39 in SEM, 1.96 in Primescan, 2.04 in Trios, and 5.21 in CS3600 (P <0.001). The parallelism, which is the difference between the upper and lower angles of the slot wall, was 0.55 in SEM, 7.55 in Primescan, 6.74 in Trios3, 6.59 in CS3600, and 24.95 in i500 (p <0.001). This study evaluated the accuracy of the bracket only and it must be admitted that there is some error in recognizing slots through scanning in general

Pneumoparotid describes the presence of retrogradely insufflated air within the Stensen's duct and/or parotid gland. It is a rare condition with variable causative factors. This study aimed to clarify the clinical characteristics of pneumoparotid; reports in all languages were evaluated fol-lowing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement 2020. A literature search was conducted using electronic medical databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, Ovid, Google Scholar, SciElo, LILIACS, and others) from 1890 to June 30, 2022. One hundred and seventy patients (mean age; 28.4 years) from 126 studies were reviewed. Common symptoms included swelling (84.7%) and pain (35.9%). Characteristic findings were crepitus in the parotid region (40%) and frothy saliva from the orifice (39.4%). Common etiologies included abnormal habits such as blowing out the cheeks (23.5%), idiopathic (20%), self-induced (15.9%), playing wind instruments such as trumpets or flutes (8.8%), and diseases inducing coughing or sneezing (8.2%). Treatments included antibiotic therapy (30%), behavioral therapy to avoid continuing causative habits (25.9%), psychiatric therapy (8.2%), and surgical procedures (8.2%). Treatment should be individualized based on the etiology. However, the etiology was not identified in 20% of patients. Further detailed data from larger samples are necessary to better understand and improve the recognition of this entity.

One of the most critical aspects in introral impression is the detection of the finish line, in particular in case of subgingival preparations. The aim of these in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy among four different IntraOral Scanners (IOSs) in scanning a subgingival vertical margins preparation (VP). A reference maxillary typodont (MT) was fabricated with a VP for full crown on #16 and #21. The MT was scanned with a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Tokyo, Japan) to obtain a digital MT (dMT) in .stl format file. A group of 40 digital casts (dIOC) were obtained by scanning the MT 10 times with four different IOSs (Trios 3, 3Shape A/S), ( I700, Medit), (Vivascan, Ivoclar), (Experimental IOS, GC). All the obtained dIOCs were imported into an inspection software program (Geomagic Control X; 3D SYSTEMS) to be superimposed to the dMT, to calculate trueness. Therefore, in order to calculate precision all the scans of the same scanner group were superimposed onto the cast that obtained the best result of trueness. Results were collected as root mean square value (RMS) on #16 and #21 abutment surfaces and on a marginal area positioned 1 mm above and below the gingival margin. A nonparametric analysis Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to compare the RMS values obtained in the different iOS groups for trueness and precision. Statistically significance was set at 0.05. The trueness on #16 abutment, did not statistically differ in between the IOS, while on #21 abutment, Vivascan (56.0 ±12.1) and Experimental IOS, GC (59.2±2.7) performed statistically better than the others. Regarding precision Experimental IOS, GC and Trios 3 were significantly better than I700 and Vivascan both in the #16 (10.7±2,1; 15.8 ± 2,7) and in the #21 area (16.9±13.8 ; 18.0±2.7). At marginal level for both #16 and #21 all the IOS reported reduced accuracy compared to clinical acceptance.