-
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 -
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 -
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation Oct 2016The literature has questioned the real need for some clinical and laboratory procedures considered essential for achieving better results for complete denture... (Review)
Review
The literature has questioned the real need for some clinical and laboratory procedures considered essential for achieving better results for complete denture fabrication. The aim of this study was to review the current literature concerning the relevance of a two-step impression procedure to achieve better clinical results in fabricating conventional complete dentures. Through an electronic search strategy of the PubMed/MEDLINE database, randomised controlled clinical trials which compared complete denture fabrication in adults in which one or two steps of impressions occurred were identified. The selections were made by three independent reviewers. Among the 540 titles initially identified, four studies (seven published papers) reporting on 257 patients evaluating aspects such as oral health-related quality of life, patient satisfaction with dentures in use, masticatory performance and chewing ability, denture quality, direct and indirect costs were considered eligible. The quality of included studies was assessed according to the Cochrane guidelines. The clinical studies considered for this review suggest that a two-step impression procedure may not be mandatory for the success of conventional complete denture fabrication regarding a variety of clinical aspects of denture quality and patients' perceptions of the treatment.
Topics: Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Denture Design; Denture, Complete; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Oral Health; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 27328133
DOI: 10.1111/joor.12418 -
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 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Aug 2011Pouring time of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions differs depending on the brand and intended use, either of which may result in variable dimensional stability. (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Pouring time of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions differs depending on the brand and intended use, either of which may result in variable dimensional stability.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study was to investigate the available literature on dimensional stability of irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials as a function of pouring time and disinfectant solutions used.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Three electronic database searches (Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE) were conducted to identify in vitro peer-reviewed studies published in English between the early 1970s and October 2010. Selection criteria included in vitro studies, irreversible hydrocolloid as impression material, and storage time. Heterogeneity in the methodology of the selected studies precluded a meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 62 initially selected studies only 18 were included. Traditional irreversible hydrocolloids were generally stable when poured immediately. However, stability decreased as time elapsed. New irreversible hydrocolloid substitutes appear to allow delay in pouring time and repouring of impressions without significant side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Shorter storage time of irreversible hydrocolloid impressions before pouring is desirable, although this may not be necessary for the extended-pour types. The lack of a standardized technique for studying the effect of storage condition, with or without the use of disinfectants, makes it difficult to make clear recommendations.
Topics: Alginates; Dental Disinfectants; Dental Impression Materials; Drug Storage; Materials Testing; Time Factors
PubMed: 21821167
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60108-X -
The International Journal of Oral &... 2014Because there is a paucity of clear-cut evidence regarding which materials and techniques are most accurate for complete-arch, multiple-implant impressions, the current... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
Because there is a paucity of clear-cut evidence regarding which materials and techniques are most accurate for complete-arch, multiple-implant impressions, the current study sought to analyze the data and draw useful conclusions based on the evidence for application in clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Relevant studies published between 1990 and December 2012 were included in the review. The articles were located through PubMed and manually through reviewing references in the literature. Papers examining implant impression accuracy in completely edentulous arches (three or more implants) were included. Clinical case reports, technique articles, abstracts, and review papers were excluded.
RESULTS
One of the 34 studies selected for evaluation was clinical; the remaining 33 were in vitro investigations. Ten studies compared polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and polyether (PE); eight found that these were statistically equal in terms of impression accuracy. The splint effect was examined by 24 studies; 10 failed to observe any differences between splinted and nonsplinted impressions, whereas 7 (> 25%) showed that the splinted technique was better than the nonsplinted technique. Thirteen studies investigated the differences between pickup and transfer impression techniques; six favored pickup over transfer, and five found insignificant differences between the techniques. The effect of nonparallel implants on edentulous multiple-implant impression accuracy was examined by only two studies. Significant differences in accuracy were observed for 15 degrees of angulation.
CONCLUSION
Most of the evidence supports PVS and PE as the most accurate impression materials for edentulous multiple-implant situations, with no clear advantage of either. Conflicting evidence exists regarding the most accurate impression technique (splinted/nonsplinted, pickup/transfer), and no clear recommendation can be made. Inadequate research exists regarding several other factors that might affect edentulous implant impression accuracy. There is a lack of clinical research to support in vitro findings.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Models, Dental; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 25032767
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3233 -
European Journal of Oral Implantology 2017The use of intraoral scanners (IOS) for making digital implant impressions is increasing. However, there is a lack of evidence on the accuracy of IOS compared with... (Review)
Review
AIM
The use of intraoral scanners (IOS) for making digital implant impressions is increasing. However, there is a lack of evidence on the accuracy of IOS compared with conventional techniques. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to collect evidence on the accuracy of digital implant impression techniques, as well as to identify the main factors influencing the accuracy outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two reviewers searched electronic databases in November, 2016. Controlled vocabulary, free-text terms, and defined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used. Publications in English language evaluating the accuracy outcomes of digital implant impressions were identified. Pooled data were analysed qualitatively and pertinent data extracted.
RESULTS
In total, 16 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria: one in vivo and 15 in vitro studies. The clinical study concluded that angular and distance errors were too large to be acceptable clinically. Less accurate findings were reported by several in vitro studies as well. However, all in vitro studies investigating the accuracy of newer generation IOS indicated equal or even better results compared with the conventional techniques. Data related to the influence of distance and angulation between implants, depth of placement, type of scanner, scanning strategy, characteristics of scanbody and reference scanner, operator experience, etc were analysed and summarised. Linear deviations (means) of IOS used in in vitro studies ranged from 6 to 337 µm. Recent studies indicated small angle deviations (0.07-0.3°) with digital impressions. Some studies reported that digital implant impression accuracy was influenced by implant angulation, distance between the implants, implant placement depth and operator experience.
CONCLUSIONS
According to the results of this systematic review and based on mainly in vitro studies, digital implant impressions offer a valid alternative to conventional impressions for single- and multi-unit implant-supported restorations. Further in vivo studies are needed to substantiate the use of currently available IOS, identify factors potentially affecting accuracy and define clinical indications for specific type of IOS. Data on Data on accuracy OF digital records, as well as accuracy of printed or milled models for implant-supported restorations, are of high relevance and are still lacking. Conflict-of-interest and funding statement: The authors state there is no conflict of interest.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 28944372
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jun 2023The direct digitalization of completely edentulous arches rehabilitated with multiple implants still represents a limitation regarding obtaining accurate images for... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The direct digitalization of completely edentulous arches rehabilitated with multiple implants still represents a limitation regarding obtaining accurate images for prosthetic purposes.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to present the factors that may influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning of completely edentulous arches.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria and registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42020171021). Three examiners performed an electronic search in the Medline/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published up to January 2021.
RESULTS
The electronic search resulted in 11 498 studies. After removing duplicates, 11 347 studies remained. Twelve studies were selected (10 in vitro and 2 in vivo) according to the eligibility criteria. Several factors were found to influence the performance of intraoral scanners (Carestream Dental and TRIOS, 3Shape presented the best results), the intraoral scanning technique (Promoting physical paths that join the digitization bodies can increase the accuracy of transferring the position of the implants), environmental conditions (temperature: 20 °C to 21 °C, air pressure: 750 to 760 ±5 mmHg, air humidity: 45%, angle and distance between the implants: up to 15 degrees and 16 to 22 mm, and the material of the scan body: PEEK more accurate).
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of the intraoral scanning of completely edentulous arches is affected by factors such as the type of intraoral scanner, scanning technique, environmental conditions, angle and distance between implants, and material of the scan bodies.
Topics: Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Technique; Models, Dental; Dental Implants; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 34656307
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.001 -
Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2020Intraoral scanner (IOS) is a medical device used for capturing direct optical impressions and composed of a handheld camera (hardware), a computer and software. Digital... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Intraoral scanner (IOS) is a medical device used for capturing direct optical impressions and composed of a handheld camera (hardware), a computer and software. Digital impressions by intraoral scanning have become an increasingly popular alternative to conventional impressions. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the studies regarding the various available technologies for IOS and evaluate the most accurate IOS system for cases with multiple implants and identify the factors that can influence its accuracy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A comprehensive electronic search was done in online databases, 'Pubmed', 'Google Scholar' and 'Cochrane' based on pre-determined eligibility criteria. In-vitro studies, In-vivo studies and Randomized controlled trials assessing the accuracy of intra-oral scanner technology were selected after thorough screening. The search strategy covered all studies published until February 2019 and yielded a total of 11 articles out of which 8 studies were determined to fulfil the inclusion criteria and were selected for this review. Data extraction from the included studies was conducted by the primary author and reviewed by the second author.
RESULTS
The information collected included sample size and population, study design, intervention, scanning methods, comparisons and outcome measures. 5 out of 8 included studies compared the distance deviation of the acquired scans from the true values while the remaining 3 studies gave trueness and precision values as the outcome variables. A forest plot on scanner precision displayed slightly higher precision levels in the TRIOS scanner compared to the other intraoral scanners.
CONCLUSION
Despite the limitations this study, it can be concluded that active wavefront sampling is more accurate than the other intraoral scanning technology employed by commercial scanners.
PubMed: 32655218
DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_379_19 -
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