-
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jul 2022A consensus on the accuracy of additively manufactured casts in comparison with those fabricated by using conventional techniques for fixed dental prostheses is lacking. (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
A consensus on the accuracy of additively manufactured casts in comparison with those fabricated by using conventional techniques for fixed dental prostheses is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the accuracy of additively manufactured casts for tooth- or implant-supported fixed dental prostheses in comparison with that of gypsum casts.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CDR42020161006). Eight databases were searched in December 2019 and updated in September 2020. Studies evaluating the dimensional accuracy of additively manufactured casts for fixed dental prostheses in comparison with that of gypsum casts were included. An adapted checklist for reporting in vitro studies (Checklist for Reporting In vitro Studies guidelines) was used to assess the risk of bias.
RESULTS
Eight studies evaluating tooth-supported fixed dental prosthesis casts and 7 studies evaluating implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis casts were eligible for this review. Gypsum casts showed greater accuracy (trueness and precision) in most studies, although additively manufactured casts also yielded highly precise data. One study was associated with a low risk of bias, 9 with a moderate risk of bias, and 5 with a high risk of bias.
CONCLUSIONS
In vitro studies showed that additively manufactured casts and gypsum casts share similar accuracy within the acceptable range for the fabrication of casts. The quality of scanned data, additive manufacture technology, printing settings, and postprocessing procedures plays an essential role in the accuracy of additively manufactured casts. Clinical studies are required to confirm these findings.
Topics: Calcium Sulfate; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Prosthodontics; Workflow
PubMed: 33551140
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.008 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Apr 2020The advent of new technologies in the field of medicine and dentistry is giving improvements that lead the clinicians to have materials and procedures able to improve... (Review)
Review
The advent of new technologies in the field of medicine and dentistry is giving improvements that lead the clinicians to have materials and procedures able to improve patients' quality of life. In dentistry, the last digital techniques offer a fully digital computerized workflow that does not include the standard multiple traditional phases. The purpose of this study is to evaluate all clinical trials and clinical randomized trials related to the digital or dental impression technique in prosthetic dentistry trying to give the readers global information about advantages and disadvantages of each procedure. Data collection was conducted in the main scientific search engines, including articles from the last 10 years, in order to obtain results that do not concern obsolete impression techniques. Elsevier, Pubmed and Embase have been screened as sources for performing the research. The results data demonstrated how the working time appears to be improved with digital workflow, but without a significant result (P = 0.72596). The papers have been selected following the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome (PICO) question, which is related to the progress on dental impression materials and technique. The comparison between dentists or practitioners with respect to classic impression procedures, and students open to new device and digital techniques seem to be the key factor on the final impression technique choice. Surely, digital techniques will end up supplanting the analogical ones altogether, improving the quality of oral rehabilitations, the economics of dental practice and also the perception by our patients.
PubMed: 32340384
DOI: 10.3390/ma13081982 -
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 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jan 2022Intraoral scanners have significantly improved over the last decade. Nevertheless, data comparing intraoral digital scans with conventional impressions are sparse. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative assessment of complete-coverage, fixed tooth-supported prostheses fabricated from digital scans or conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Intraoral scanners have significantly improved over the last decade. Nevertheless, data comparing intraoral digital scans with conventional impressions are sparse.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine the impact of impression technique (digital scans versus conventional impressions) on the clinical time, patient comfort, and marginal fit of tooth-supported prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The authors conducted a literature search based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework in 3 databases to identify clinical trials with no language or date restrictions. The mean clinical time, patient comfort, and marginal fit values of each study were independently extracted by 2 review authors and categorized according to the scanning or impression method. The authors assessed the study-level risk of bias.
RESULTS
A total of 16 clinical studies met the inclusion criteria. The mean clinical time was statistically similar for digital scan procedures (784 ±252 seconds) and for conventional impression methods (1125 ±159 seconds) (P>.05). The digital scan techniques were more comfortable for patients than conventional impressions; the mean visual analog scale score was 67.8 ±21.7 for digital scans and 39.6 ±9.3 for conventional impressions (P<.05). The mean marginal fit was 80.9 ±31.9 μm and 92.1 ±35.4 μm for digital scan and conventional impressions, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS
Digital scan techniques are comparable with conventional impressions in terms of clinical time and marginal fit but are more comfortable for patients than conventional impression techniques.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Databases, Factual; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Prosthesis Design; Humans
PubMed: 33143901
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.017 -
Cureus Jan 2024The accuracy of definitive impressions has a significant impact on the quality of the final prosthesis. Elastic impression materials are commonly used in the traditional... (Review)
Review
The accuracy of definitive impressions has a significant impact on the quality of the final prosthesis. Elastic impression materials are commonly used in the traditional approach to replicate anatomical structures while indirectly fabricating prostheses. Digital impression has gained increasing popularity due to its various advantages, including three-dimensional previsualization, cost-effectiveness, and reduced time consumption. The objective of this study is to evaluate existing studies to provide an overview of the comparative advantages of digital impression techniques over conventional techniques. The review will focus on evaluating the accuracy, patient acceptability, operator preference, and time effectiveness of digital impression techniques in comparison to conventional techniques. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome framework served as the basis for this study's search strategy. We conducted a comprehensive literature review by electronically searching articles published between 2000 and 2023 in PubMed, Medline, Cochrane, and the Web of Science. Furthermore, additional manual searches were conducted. The study examined the differences between optical impressions and traditional impressions in terms of accuracy, patient outcomes, and operator outcomes. It included both clinical and preclinical studies as well as randomized controlled trials. In conclusion, this review provides a short summary indicating that digital impressions exhibit comparable accuracy to conventional impressions without any statistically significant difference. This conclusion is based on an evaluation of accuracy, patient preference, and operator preference.
PubMed: 38304652
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.51537 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2023Polyvinyl ether siloxane (PVES) possesses ideal characteristics for making precise and accurate dental impressions. PVES dimensional stability owes to its better... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Polyvinyl ether siloxane (PVES) possesses ideal characteristics for making precise and accurate dental impressions. PVES dimensional stability owes to its better polymeric properties derived from its parent materials poly ethers and polyvinyl siloxanes. As recommended use of chemical disinfecting agents is getting more popular, there is a growing concern associated with the effect of disinfectants on PVES dimensional stability. This study was aimed to understand the PVES behavior when subjected to chemical disinfectants.
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
The data was collected from research studies retrieved from Google Scholar, Scopus, and PubMed using MeSH terms of keywords "vinyl polyether siloxane AND Disinfection" or (Vinyl polyether siloxane OR polyvinyl siloxane ether OR PVES) AND (disinfectant OR disinfection)" without any restriction to publication date. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis) directions were observed during the data collection, screening of studies, and meta-analysis. The primary data were retrieved, and batch exported from databases using Harzing's Publish or Perish software; primary analysis was performed in Microsoft Excel, while statistical analysis for effect size, two-tailed p-values, and heterogeneity among studies was performed using Meta Essentials. The effect size was calculated using Hedge's g values at the 95% confidence level using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was measured using the Cochrane Q and I.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION
Dental impressions made from the PVES elastomeric impression materials showed no significant changes in dimensional stability. Immersion in the chemical disinfectant for 10 min was associated with clinically irrelevant changes in the dimensions of the PVES impressions. Disinfection with sodium hypochlorite was associated with clinically significant changes in dimensions, with a two-tailed p-value of 0.049. Disinfection with 2-2.5% glutaraldehyde solution was not associated with any significant dimensional variability.
Topics: Humans; Disinfectants; Disinfection; Ether; Ethers; Ethyl Ethers; Polyvinyls; Siloxanes
PubMed: 37430254
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03168-8 -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2022The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of splinting impression copings on the accuracy of conventional impressions for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of splinting impression copings on the accuracy of conventional impressions for two-unit nonparallel implant restorations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched with no publication year or language limits, and studies comparing the accuracy of conventional impressions for two-unit nonparallel implant restorations made using splinted impression copings and nonsplinted impression copings were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software. The mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for the framework strain and marginal gap of the implant-framework connection between impressions using splinted and nonsplinted copings were statistically analyzed (α = .05).
RESULTS
Initially, 142 articles were identified after the removal of duplicates. Five in vitro studies were included in the systematic review, and four in vitro studies were included in the meta-analysis. All the included studies were focused on internal-connection implants and implant-level impressions. The implant angulation in the included studies ranged from 8 to 30 degrees. Impressions using splinted impression copings exhibited significantly smaller marginal gaps than those using nonsplinted impression copings (P = .02; mean difference [MD] = -13.34; 95% CI = -24.31 to -2.36). Moreover, with respect to the framework strain, no significant differences were found between impressions using splinted impression copings and nonsplinted impression copings (P = .47; MD = -12.64; 95% CI = -47.32 to 22.03).
CONCLUSIONS
Significantly larger marginal gaps were found in the impressions using splinted impression copings, but the clinical significance was low. Based on the limited number of studies included, splinting copings is unnecessary when making conventional impressions for two-unit nonparallel implant restorations.
Topics: Adaptation, Psychological; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported
PubMed: 35904821
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.9577 -
The International Journal of... 2023To compare the marginal gap and internal fit of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated using intraoral vs extraoral scanning methods. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To compare the marginal gap and internal fit of fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated using intraoral vs extraoral scanning methods.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE/PubMed and the Cochrane database were searched. The focused PICO question was: For the fabrication of FDPs, does an intraoral scanning technique result in a different marginal gap than an extraoral scanning technique? The secondary outcome assessed was internal fit. Studies were selected based on the inclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
A total of 14 studies (10 in vitro and 4 in vivo) were included in the meta-analysis. Marginal gap in single crowns was evaluated in 5 studies, copings for single crowns in 5 studies, three-unit FDPs in 3 studies, and both single-crown and three-unit FDPs in 1 study. Significantly lower marginal gap was found with intraoral scanning compared to impression scanning (P < .001) and cast scanning (P < .001), and for impression scanning compared to cast scanning (P = .037). Internal fit was superior with intraoral scanning compared to impression scanning, and this difference was significant (P < .001). No significant differences were found in internal fit with cast scanning compared to intraoral or impression scanning. The mean marginal gap/internal fit was 188.3 μm/146.2 μm with intraoral scanning, 116.29 μm/168.2 μm with impression scanning, and 195.1 μm/229.1 μm with cast scanning.
CONCLUSION
Marginal gap was lower with intraoral scanning than with impression scanning and cast scanning. Impression scanning showed less marginal gap than cast scanning. Internal fit with intraoral scanning was superior to impression scanning, but when compared to cast scanning, no difference was found.
Topics: Dental Prosthesis
PubMed: 36853226
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.7634 -
Journal of Prosthodontics : Official... Dec 2022Several studies have compared digital intraoral scanners and conventional impressions. The accuracy of these two methods in terms of marginal accuracy of lithium... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Several studies have compared digital intraoral scanners and conventional impressions. The accuracy of these two methods in terms of marginal accuracy of lithium disilicate crowns is not well-established, yet. The purpose of this study was to systematically review available publications on marginal fit of single-unit, full-coverage, tooth-supported lithium disilicate restorations.
METHODS
Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Scopus were electronically searched along with a manual search. After critical appraisal, data from selected studies were extracted and mean marginal difference with a 95% confidence interval was calculated. Meta-analysis of the collected data was conducted using STATA software.
RESULTS
The meta-analysis revealed similar marginal gap values in intraoral scanners with conventional groups (p>0.05) and in intraoral scanners with extraoral canners (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION
No significant difference was seen between digital and conventional impressions or intra- and extraoral scanners for marginal accuracy of lithium disilicate crowns.
Topics: Humans; Workflow; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis Design; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Porcelain; Crowns
PubMed: 35344238
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13515 -
The Journal of Evidence-based Dental... Dec 2023The present study aimed to systematically review the current randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with respect to computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
COMPARISONS BETWEEN DIGITAL-GUIDED AND NONDIGITAL PROTOCOL IN IMPLANT PLANNING, PLACEMENT, AND RESTORATIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS.
OBJECTIVES
The present study aimed to systematically review the current randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with respect to computer-aided design/computer-aided manufactured (CAD/CAM) techniques in the process of implant planning, placement, and rehabilitation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four independent reviewers conducted an electronic and manual literature search using several databases, including the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE. Articles were included if they were RCTs involving the interventions regarding the computer-guided impression, placement, and manufacturing process. The outcomes of interest include clinical and patient-reported outcomes and time efficiency. A meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the time efficiency, pain severity, accuracy of implant placement, and postsurgery marginal bone level.
RESULTS
A total of 39 and 25 articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative analysis, respectively. The results of the meta-analysis showed that significantly less time was spent performing the digital impression procedure than the conventional impression (P = .002). In addition, the average adjustment time of the final prosthesis was significantly less than the nondigital fabricated prosthesis (P = .0005). Computer-guided groups reported significantly lower painkiller consumption compared to control groups (P = .03).
CONCLUSIONS
Digital impressions and CAD/CAM procedures are time-saving and provide stable and predictable outcomes. Moreover, computer-guided surgery can effectuate an accurate implant placement and less postsurgery discomfort.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; United States
PubMed: 38035896
DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2023.101919