-
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... Aug 2020This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of digital impression techniques for implant-supported restorations, and to assess their economic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of digital impression techniques for implant-supported restorations, and to assess their economic feasibility.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Two independent electronic database searches were conducted in the Pubmed/MedLine, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases complimented by a manual search, selecting relevant clinical and studies published between 1st January 2009 and 28st February 2019. All type of studies ( and ) were included in this systematic review.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven studies (8 and 19 studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No meta-analysis was performed due to a large heterogeneity of the study protocols. The passive fit of superstructures on dental implants presented similar results between digital and conventional impression techniques. The studies considered that several factors influence the accuracy of implant impression taking: distance and angulation between implants, depth of placement, type of scanner, scanning strategy, characteristics of scanbody, and operator experience. Regarding the economic viability of intraoral scanning systems, only one study reported any benefit in comparison with conventional techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital impressions of dental implants can be considered a viable alternative in cases of one or two contiguous dental implants. However, more studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of digital techniques in full-arch implant-supported restorations. Intraoral scanner, dental implant, prosthesis, misfit, systematic review.
PubMed: 32913577
DOI: 10.4317/jced.57025 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Dec 2023To evaluate the influence of implant scan body (ISB) design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on the accuracy of digital implant scans.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the influence of implant scan body (ISB) design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on the accuracy of digital implant scans.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the evaluation of ISB design on the accuracy of digital scans obtained by using IOSs were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus. Articles were classified based on the ISB features of height, geometry, material, and retention system.
RESULTS
Twenty articles were included. Among the reviewed studies, 11 investigations analyzed the influence of different ISB geometries, 1 study assessed the impact of ISB diameter, 4 studies investigated the effect of ISB splinting, 2 articles evaluated ISB height, and 2 studies focused on the effect of ISB material on scan accuracy. In addition, 8 studies involved ISBs fabricated with different materials (1- and 2-piece polyetheretherketone and 1-piece titanium ISBs), and all of the reviewed articles tested screw-retained ISBs, except for 3 in vitro studies.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings did not enable concrete conclusions regarding the optimal ISB design, whether there is a relationship between IOS technology and a specific ISB design, or the clinical condition that maximizes intraoral scanning accuracy. Research efforts are needed to identify the optimal ISB design and its possible relationship with the IOS selected for acquiring intraoral digital implant scans.
Topics: Dental Implants; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Dental Impression Technique; Computer-Aided Design; Models, Dental
PubMed: 37771200
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13774 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Dec 2023To evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants.
PURPOSE
To evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the use of commercially available PG systems were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.
RESULTS
A total of 14 articles were included: 3 in vivo, 6 in vitro, and 6 case report manuscripts. One clinical study evaluated trueness, another one tested precision, and the third one assessed impression time and patient and operator satisfaction. All the in vitro studies evaluated the trueness and precision of a PG system. Additionally, all the reviewed studies investigated completely edentulous conditions with multiple implants. The number of placed implants per arch among the reviewed clinical studies varied from 4 to 8 implants, while the number of implants placed on the reference casts included 4, 5, 6, or 8 implants. Not all the studies compared the accuracy of PG systems with conventional impression methods, using intraoral scanners as additional experimental groups. For the PIC system, trueness ranged from 10 to 49 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 65 μm. For the iCam4D system, trueness ranged from 24 to 77 μm and the precision value ranged from 2 to 203 μm.
CONCLUSIONS
PG systems may provide a reliable alternative for acquiring the 3D position of dental implants. However, this conclusion should be interpreted carefully, as one study reported a mean precision value of one PG system higher than the clinically acceptable discrepancy. Lower scanning time and higher patient and operator satisfaction have been reported when compared with conventional techniques. Further studies are needed to increase the evidence regarding the accuracy, scanning time, and patient and operator satisfaction of the commercially available PG systems.
Topics: Humans; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Models, Dental; Patient Satisfaction; Photogrammetry
PubMed: 37591510
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13751 -
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 -
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 -
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 Nov 2022Evidence comparing the marginal and internal fit of single metal copings fabricated via selective laser sintering and conventional lost-wax casting is inadequate. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Evidence comparing the marginal and internal fit of single metal copings fabricated via selective laser sintering and conventional lost-wax casting is inadequate.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the fit of single metal copings fabricated via selective laser sintering and lost-wax casting. Moreover, the effects of different variables on fit accuracy were determined.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Wiley databases were searched electronically as well as manually. The mean absolute marginal gap, marginal gap, internal gap, axial gap, and occlusal gap values of single metal copings fabricated via selective laser sintering and lost-wax casting were statistically analyzed to determine and evaluate the factors affecting the fit accuracy (α=.05).
RESULTS
Single metal copings fabricated via selective laser sintering had mean absolute marginal gaps and occlusal gaps similar to those of copings fabricated via lost-wax casting, based on a subgroup meta-analysis of gaps evaluated using stereomicroscopy (P>.05). The fit of single metal copings was not affected by the type of tooth (P>.05). The conventional impression, the indirect digital scan, and the direct digital scan led to similar values of mean axial gap, internal gap, and marginal gap for the copings fabricated via lost-wax casting (P>.05). The indirect and direct digital scans led to similar values of mean axial gap, internal gap, and marginal gap for the copings fabricated via selective laser sintering (P>.05). Printed wax patterns provided significantly smaller mean axial gap values than milled plastic or milled wax patterns for the copings fabricated via lost-wax casting (P<.05). Printed, milled, and conventional wax patterns had similar mean marginal gaps and internal gaps for the copings fabricated via lost-wax casting (P>.05). For single copings fabricated via lost-wax casting, Ni-Cr and Co-Cr had similar mean internal gaps (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS
No statistically significant differences were found between single metal copings fabricated via selective laser sintering and lost-wax casting. Selective laser sintering can satisfy the clinical requirement for single metal copings.
Topics: Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Casting Technique; Dental Prosthesis Design; Computer-Aided Design; Chromium Alloys; Lasers; Crowns
PubMed: 33789799
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.011