-
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Aug 2016Limited evidence is available for the marginal and internal fit of fixed dental restorations fabricated with digital impressions compared with those fabricated with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Limited evidence is available for the marginal and internal fit of fixed dental restorations fabricated with digital impressions compared with those fabricated with conventional impressions.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare marginal and internal fit of fixed dental restorations fabricated with digital techniques to those fabricated using conventional impression techniques and to determine the effect of different variables on the accuracy of fit.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were electronically searched and enriched by hand searches. Studies evaluating the fit of fixed dental restorations fabricated with digital and conventional impression techniques were identified. Pooled data were statistically analyzed, and factors affecting the accuracy of fit were identified, and their impact on accuracy of fit outcomes were assessed.
RESULTS
Dental restorations fabricated with digital impression techniques exhibited similar marginal misfit to those fabricated with conventional impression techniques (P>.05). Both marginal and internal discrepancies were greater for stone die casts, whereas digital dies produced restorations with the smallest discrepancies (P<.05). When a digital impression was used to generate stereolithographic (SLA)/polyurethane dies, misfit values were intermediate. The fabrication technique, the type of restoration, and the impression material had no effect on misfit values (P>.05), whereas die and restoration materials were statistically associated (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Although conclusions were based mainly on in vitro studies, the digital impression technique provided better marginal and internal fit of fixed restorations than conventional techniques did.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Prosthesis; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Prosthodontics
PubMed: 26946916
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2021Digital and conventional options for definitive impressions and for the fabrication of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) have been compared in previous studies. However, a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Digital and conventional options for definitive impressions and for the fabrication of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) have been compared in previous studies. However, a comprehensive review with concluding data that determined which method provided the minimal internal and marginal adaptation is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo and in vitro studies was to compare the marginal and internal adaptation of complete-coverage single-unit crowns and multiunit FDPs resulting from digital and conventional impression and fabrication methods.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The review protocol was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Cochrane Trials, Scopus, and Open Grey databases were used to identify relevant articles. Based on fixed prostheses impression and fabrication methods, groups from each study were categorized into 4 groups: conventional impression and fabrication (CC), conventional impression and digital fabrication (CD), digital scanning and conventional fabrication (DC), and digital scanning and fabrication (DD). The risk of bias was assessed by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for clinical trials and the modified Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) for in vitro studies. Heterogeneity was evaluated among studies, and meta-analysis was performed with random-effect models (α=.05). Subgroup analysis was conducted when possible.
RESULTS
Eight clinical trials and 21 in vitro studies were eligible for analysis. There was no significant difference between the CD and DD clinical groups for marginal adaptation (P=.149); However, the DD group had significantly less internal discrepancy than the CD group (P=.009). The in vitro studies found no significant difference in marginal adaptation among the CC-CD, CC-DC, and CC-DD pairs (P=.437, P=.387, P=.587), but in the comparison CD versus DD group, a significantly better marginal adaptation was observed for the DD group (P=.001). All the compared in vitro groups were similar in terms of internal adaptation.
CONCLUSIONS
Impression and fabrication techniques may affect the accuracy of fit of complete-coverage fixed restorations. A completely digital workflow yielded restorations with comparable or better marginal adaptation than the other methods.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Crowns; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Prosthesis Design; Workflow
PubMed: 32928518
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.07.007 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jul 2023Intraoral scanning has been reported to be preferred by patients over conventional impression making. Nevertheless, information regarding patient-related outcomes for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Intraoral scanning has been reported to be preferred by patients over conventional impression making. Nevertheless, information regarding patient-related outcomes for conventional impression making and digital scanning is sparse.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze patient-related outcomes of intraoral scanning and conventional impression methods. The primary outcomes evaluated were patient preference and satisfaction, and the secondary outcomes discomfort, nausea, unpleasant taste, breathing difficulty, pain, and anxiety.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic and manual searches were performed for clinical trials that evaluated patient-related outcomes for intraoral scanning and conventional impression making for prosthetic rehabilitation. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of the studies. Random-effects models using mean difference were used for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I statistics (α=.05).
RESULTS
The search strategy identified 1626 articles, and 11 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Patients preferred intraoral scanning to conventional impression making. The mean difference for patient preference was 15.02 (95% confidence interval of 8.33 - 21.73; P<.001). Discomfort, absence of nausea, absence of unpleasant taste, and absence of breathing difficulty were also significantly different (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Intraoral scanning is a suitable alternative to conventional impression procedures, promoting less discomfort for patients sensitive to taste, nausea, and breathing difficulty than when conventional impression making techniques are used.
Topics: Humans; Dental Impression Technique; Patient Preference; Computer-Aided Design
PubMed: 34756424
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.022 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Jun 2022The use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital implant impressions in daily clinical practice is increasing. However, no structured literature review on the accuracy... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital implant impressions in daily clinical practice is increasing. However, no structured literature review on the accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies has been described to date. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to answer the PICO question: Which accuracy is described for digital implant impressions in clinical studies?
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic database search was conducted in December 2021 using MeSH terms and free-text search. English-language studies addressing the accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies involving at least 10 patients were included. All clinical indications were considered.
RESULTS
Eight publications between 2014 and 2021 matched the review criteria. However, the study designs showed considerable differences. The number of implants within the studies ranged from 1 to 6, and the number of patients ranged from 10 to 39. The oldest study (2014) revealed the highest deviation for linear distances at 1000 ± 650 µm, whereas the other studies reported data in the range of 360 ± 46 µm to 40 ± 20 µm. In one study, no numerical data were reported and all studies compared digital and conventional implant impressions.
CONCLUSIONS
The number of clinical studies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions is low. Thus, the impact of different factors, such as the scanpath or scanbody, could not be identified. However, the accuracy of recent IOSs for digital implant impressions in patients was shown to be clinically acceptable. Nevertheless, the transfer error still needs to be considered when fabricating implant-supported restorations.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Databases, Factual; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Models, Dental
PubMed: 35527511
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13951 -
Frontiers in Pediatrics 2023The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the perception of the patient, the chairside time, and the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scanners for... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the perception of the patient, the chairside time, and the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scanners for full arch in pediatric patients.
METHODS
A data search was performed in four databases (Medline-Pubmed, Scopus, ProQuest and Web of Science) in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statements. Studies were classified in three categories (patient perception, scanning or impression time and reliability and/or reproducibility). The resources, the data extraction and the quality assessment were carried out independently by two operators. The variables recorded were population characteristics, material and methods aspects and included country, study design and main conclusion. A quality assessment of the selected studies was performed with QUADAS-2 tool, and Kappa-Cohen Index was calculated to analyze examiner agreement.
RESULTS
The initial search obtained 681 publications, and finally four studies matching inclusion criteria were selected. The distribution of the studies in the categories was three for the analysis of the patient's perception and scanning or impression time; and two items to assess the reliability and/or reproducibility of intraoral scans. All included studies have a repeated measures-transversal design. The sample size ranged between 26 and 59 children with a mean age. The intraoral scanners evaluated were Lava C.O.S, Cerec Omnicam, TRIOS Classic, TRIOS 3-Cart and TRIOS Ortho. The quality assessment of the studies using QUADAS-2 tool revealed a low risk of bias while evaluating patient perception, but an unclear risk of bias in the analysis of accuracy or chairside time. In relation to the applicability concerns, the patient selection was of high risk of bias. All studies agreed that the patient perception and comfort is better with intraoral scanners in comparison with the conventional method. The accuracy or reliability of the digital procedure is not clear, being clinically acceptable. In relation with the chairside time, it depends on the intraoral scanner, with contradictory data in the different analyzed studies.
CONCLUSION
The use of intraoral scanners in children is a favorable option, finding a significantly higher patient perception and comfort with intraoral scanners compared to the conventional impression method. The evidence for reliability or reproducibility is not strong to date, however, the differences between the intraoral measurements and the digital models would be clinically acceptable.
PubMed: 37435173
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1213072 -
Evidence-based Dentistry Mar 2017Data sourcesA broad computerised search with similar key terms was performed in different databases that included: Ovid Medline, Thomson's ISI Web of Science, PubMed,... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
Data sourcesA broad computerised search with similar key terms was performed in different databases that included: Ovid Medline, Thomson's ISI Web of Science, PubMed, Science Direct, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature, dissertations, abstracts and theses were searched too. Reference lists of the selected articles were hand-searched.Study selectionThe inclusion criteria included in vivo randomised clinical trials and quasi-randomised clinical trials using gingival retraction techniques with and without cord. Studies were included if they examined the primary outcome from the review: efficiency of haemostasis control, the amount of gingival displacement and the influence of the techniques on gingival/periodontal health. Secondary outcomes accepted for the review included subjective factors reported by the patient such as pain, sensitivity, unpleasant taste and discomfort and operator's experience with both techniques. Non-English papers, clinical reports, animals studies or in vitro studies were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently searched and screened the articles. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. A third reviewer participated in the eligibility of the studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Due to the heterogeneity of measurement variables across the studies and the differences among the studies, a meta-analysis was not performed. A narrative assessment was performed for the outcomes: moisture/bleeding control, gingival displacement, gingival/periodontal health and the subjective outcomes.ResultsFrom the initial search that retrieved 1,342 articles, 19 potential relevant full-text articles were considered for the review. Seven studies were selected for the systematic review. Four randomised clinical trials were included. Sample size ranged from eight to 252 participants per study. Five studies were conducted on patients requiring any indirect fixed restorations on prepared teeth. Two studies were done on unprepared teeth. In all studies, participants were in good health, had a healthy gingival condition and a sound periodontal status.ConclusionsBoth techniques are reliable in achieving gingival retraction. The review supports the observation that gingival retraction paste can more effectively help to achieve a dry field and at the same time be less injurious to soft tissues, however its ability to displace gingival tissues, compared to retraction cord, was compromising. Rather than considering the cost of material or the individual preference of the operator, choosing the right technique to maximise clinical efficiency should be based on scientific evidence. It seems that impregnated gingival cords are more effective on thick gingival tissue whereas paste is more effective when minimal retraction is required for haemostasis control, preservation of the gingiva and less tissue displacement.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Dental Impression Technique; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Female; Gingival Retraction Techniques; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic
PubMed: 28338036
DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401222 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Oct 2022The technology behind optical scanners has greatly improved recently, making their dental application advantageous. While their accuracy is now comparable with that of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Patient preference and clinical working time between digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The technology behind optical scanners has greatly improved recently, making their dental application advantageous. While their accuracy is now comparable with that of conventional impression materials, whether these techniques have other advantages is unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether digital scanning for implant-supported restorations is more time-efficient and convenient for the patient.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The study was conducted on September 23, 2020 using 4 different databases (Medline, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus) searching for clinical studies that compared the time needed and/or patient perceptions between those who had undergone the digital scanning procedure and those who had undergone conventional impression making.
RESULTS
Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative and quantitative analysis. Outcome variables were measured as standard mean differences (SMDs) by following a fixed-effects model or random-effects model (in the case of high heterogeneity). Digital scanning was more time-efficient and was preferred by patients for all 4 analyzed outcomes (comfort, anxiety, nausea, time perception).
CONCLUSIONS
Digital scanning was found to be more time-efficient and convenient than conventional impression making for implant-supported restorations. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the findings of this review.
Topics: Humans; Dental Impression Technique; Computer-Aided Design; Patient Preference; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials
PubMed: 33678434
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.042 -
The Saudi Dental Journal May 2020The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to identify the different disinfection methods and materials and the existing evidence on their... (Review)
Review
Effect of chemical, microwave irradiation, steam autoclave, ultraviolet light radiation, ozone and electrolyzed oxidizing water disinfection on properties of impression materials: A systematic review and meta-analysis study.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis study was to identify the different disinfection methods and materials and the existing evidence on their effect on properties of the different impression materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Science Direct, and Google Scholar databases was performed to retrieve related English-language articles published between January 2000 and July 2019. Available studies with search terms such as: Impression disinfection, disinfection method, impression dimensional stability and impression wettability were used. The selected articles were reviewed by screening their titles and abstracts and full text. Finally, a total of 70 articles were considered relevant and were included in this study.
RESULTS
Extensive studies were conducted to determine the effect of the different disinfection methods and materials on the properties of the different impression materials such as dimensional stability, wettability and surface roughness. While some studies reported significant changes in the properties of the impression materials, others reported either no changes or minor insignificant effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Some studies reported significant changes in the properties of the impression materials as a result of using different disinfection methods, whereas others reported either minor insignificant or no changes. Although the findings of the studies were controversial, care should be taken to avoid distortion of impressions and loss of their surface details that can adversely affect the fitting accuracy of the restorations. Therefore, better designed and standardized studies are needed to evaluate the effect of different commonly used disinfectants on properties of impression materials. Moreover, manufacturers should be encouraged to recommend specific disinfection methods and materials for disinfecting the impression materials to ensure their optimal accuracy.
PubMed: 32405219
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.12.003 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jul 2023Available studies comparing fit accuracy of zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans provide contradictory... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Available studies comparing fit accuracy of zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs) fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans provide contradictory results. In addition, studies have been heterogeneous and of a limited number to provide conclusive evidence.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the marginal and intaglio fit of tooth-supported zirconia FPDs fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans and to investigate the effect of different variables on the fit results.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed on the National Library of Medicine (NLM), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus databases. In addition, a manual search was carried out. Studies comparing the fit of tooth-supported zirconia FPDs fabricated from conventional impressions and digital scans and reporting sufficient data for qualitative and quantitative analysis were included. Standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed to study the effect of variables including restoration form (monolithic or framework), units number, intraoral scanner (IOS) type, conventional impression material, spacer thickness, and abutments region.
RESULTS
The initial search resulted in a total of 608 articles. Nine articles were included in the analysis (1 clinical and 8 in vitro) evaluating 118 restorations. Digital scan displayed significantly better marginal fit (P<.001; SMD: -0.68; 95% CI: -0.92, -0.09) and intaglio fit (P=.020; SMD: -0.51; 95% CI: -0.94, -0.42). Test for subgroup difference showed a significant influence of only impression material type (P=.008) and units number (P=.030) on marginal fit. Digital scan showed significantly better marginal accuracy for 3-unit FPDs than 4-unit FPDs (P<.001; SMD: -1.02; 95% CI: -1.41, -0.63). In addition, digital scanning had significantly better marginal fit with polyvinyl siloxane than polyether (P<.001; SMD: -0.98; 95% CI: -1.32, -0.64). A cement spacer ≤50 μm improved both marginal and intaglio fit in the digital group. The TRIOS scanner resulted in the best performance in the digital group for marginal fit.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital scanning provides significantly better marginal and intaglio fit than conventional impression making for fabricating zirconia FPDs up to 4 units, either in monolithic form or frameworks and at any region of the arch. However, further clinical studies are recommended to obtain more substantial results.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Impression Technique; Zirconium; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design
PubMed: 34696907
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.025 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2018Limited evidence is available comparing digital versus conventional impressions from the point of view of patient preference. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Limited evidence is available comparing digital versus conventional impressions from the point of view of patient preference.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to identify and summarize the available literature related to patient-centered outcomes for digital versus conventional impression techniques.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The databases Medline, Cochrane, Science Direct, Scopus, and Embase were electronically searched and complemented by hand searches. All published papers available on the databases from 1955 to July 2016 were considered for title and abstract analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 2943 articles were initially identified through database searches, of which only 5 met the inclusion criteria for qualitative analysis. Four studies comparing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between conventional and digital impressions revealed that the digital technique was more comfortable and caused less anxiety and sensation of nausea. Only 1 study reported no difference between the techniques regardless of patient comfort. Two studies reported a shorter procedure for the conventional technique, whereas 3 studies reported a shorter procedure for the digital technique.
CONCLUSIONS
A lack of clinical studies addressing patient outcomes regarding digital prosthodontic treatments was observed among the included articles. However, current evidence suggests that patients are more likely to prefer the digital workflow than the conventional techniques.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis Design; Humans; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28967407
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.007