-
International Journal of Implant... May 2024The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific focus on scan bodies (ISBs).
METHODS
Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study conducted a thorough electronic search across MedLine, PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance. The Robins I tool assessed the risk of bias in various study types. Data extraction occurred based on predetermined parameters for studying specimens and assessing outcomes.
RESULTS
16 studies met the specified criteria and were consequently included in the systematic review. Due to variations in variables and methods across the selected studies, statistical comparison of results was not feasible. Therefore, a descriptive review approach was chosen, acknowledging the substantial heterogeneity in the reviewed literature.
CONCLUSIONS
The precision of virtual scan results is contingent upon diverse characteristics of ISBs and implants. These factors encompass their placement within the dental arch, structural design, shape, material composition, color, and the manufacturing system, all of which contribute to scan accuracy. Additionally, considerations such as the intraoral scanner (IOS) type, scanning technique, use of scan aids, inter-implant distance, scan span, and the number of implants warrant evaluation. In the context of capturing implant positions, intraoral scanning with ISBs demonstrates comparable accuracy to traditional impression methods, particularly in single and short-span scenarios. However, the existing data lacks sufficient information on in vivo applications to formulate clinical recommendations.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Prosthesis Design
PubMed: 38691258
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-024-00543-0 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Jun 2023The best method of optimizing the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans is still unclear. For instance, the location of the scan bodies can be significantly... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The best method of optimizing the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans is still unclear. For instance, the location of the scan bodies can be significantly distorted with respect to their actual positions, which would lead to a nonpassive fit of the definitive prosthesis.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze available techniques for improving the accuracy of digital scans in implant-supported complete arch fixed prostheses.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Three databases (Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar) were searched, and the results obtained were supplemented by a hand search. Specific descriptors identified techniques whose objective were to increase the accuracy of digital scans in implant-supported complete arch fixed prostheses. Titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers, and unclear results were discussed with a third independent reviewer. A qualitative analysis based on procedural parameters was used. The interexaminer agreements of both were assessed by the Cohen kappa statistic, and the Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias across the studies.
RESULTS
A total of 17 techniques matching the inclusion criteria were evaluated. Higher accuracy but also differences regarding the need for supplementary devices, number of intraoral scans, and time consumption of clinical and software program steps were observed compared with the conventional digital scanning protocol. The use of a splinting device was common to most of the studies. The outcome variables for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these protocols were heterogeneous.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of additional techniques during intraoral scanning can improve accuracy in implant-supported complete arch fixed prostheses. However, higher complexity for those procedures should be expected.
Topics: Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Computer-Aided Design; Models, Dental; Prosthesis Implantation; Imaging, Three-Dimensional
PubMed: 34756427
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.018 -
Journal of Prosthodontic Research Oct 2021Purpose To clarify the rate of posterior residual ridge resorption (PRRR) in different denture treatments and the factors that can affect PRRR.Study selection A...
Purpose To clarify the rate of posterior residual ridge resorption (PRRR) in different denture treatments and the factors that can affect PRRR.Study selection A bibliographical electronic search was conducted on MeSH, Web of Science, and Ovid databases. Hand searching was also conducted. Longitudinal studies recording the average rate of PRRR in the mandible were included. The effect size was calculated based on the mean rate of PRRR with standard deviation and group size. The random-effects analysis was used to perform meta-analyses across qualified studies.Results A total of 2245 eligible studies were collected from the MeSH, Web of Science, and Ovid databases and hand searching. In the end, 19 studies met the inclusion criteria and were extracted. The average rate of PRRR in different mandibular denture treatments was assessed in this systematic review. The mean combined effect size was -1.05 ± 0.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.18-1.08) between four-implant overdentures and two-implant overdentures. The combined effect size was -0.01 ± 0.22 (95% CI: -0.93-0.82) between complete dentures and two-implant overdentures. Body mass index, number of dentures used, denture wearing habit, impression technique, artificial tooth material, and peri-implant bone resorption showed no significant effect on the rate of PRRR. Gender, denture material, and relining frequency showed a significant effect on the rate of PRRR.Conclusions This review summarized different average rates of PRRR in mandibular denture treatments. Meta-analyses have reported that four-implant overdenture treatments can lower the rate of PRRR compared to two-implant overdenture treatments. However, there was no significant difference in the treatment effect between the complete denture and two-implant overdenture treatments.
Topics: Bone Resorption; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Denture, Complete; Denture, Overlay; Humans; Mandible
PubMed: 33281173
DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_20_00075 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Feb 2019The accuracy of the virtual images used in digital dentistry is essential to the success of oral rehabilitation.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The accuracy of the virtual images used in digital dentistry is essential to the success of oral rehabilitation.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to estimate the mean accuracy of digital technologies used to scan facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search strategy was applied in 4 databases and in the non-peer-reviewed literature from April through June 2017 and was updated in July 2017. Studies evaluating the dimensional accuracy of 3-dimensional images acquired by the scanning of hard and soft tissues were included.
RESULTS
A total of 2093 studies were identified by the search strategy, of which 183 were initially screened for full-text reading and 34 were considered eligible for this review. The scanning of facial tissues showed deviation values ranging between 140 and 1330 μm, whereas the 3D reconstruction of the jaw bone ranged between 106 and 760 μm. The scanning of a dentate arch by intraoral and laboratorial scanners varied from 17 μm to 378 μm. For edentulous arches, the scanners showed a trueness ranging between 44.1 and 591 μm and between 19.32 and 112 μm for dental implant digital scanning.
CONCLUSIONS
The current digital technologies are reported to be accurate for specific applications. However, the scanning of edentulous arches still represents a challenge.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Models, Dental; Mouth Rehabilitation; Patient Care Planning
PubMed: 30017156
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.015 -
International Journal of Oral... May 2021To evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and analyse the related variables.
PURPOSE
To evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and analyse the related variables.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search of studies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions in fully edentulous arches from 1 January 2012 to 29 February 2020 was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Only peer-reviewed experimental or clinical studies written in English were included. Studies assessing the accuracy of restorations, case reports, clinical reports, technical reports and reviews were excluded. The literature screening, article reading and assessment of risk of bias were carried out by two reviewers. The data on the study characteristics, accuracy outcomes and investigated variables were extracted.
RESULTS
After removal of duplicates, a total of 166 studies were identified, of which 42 were initially selected for full-text reading and 30 were included in the final analysis (29 in vitro studies and one in vivo study). The trueness of digital implant impressions ranged from 7.6 to 731.7 μm, and the precision ranged from 15.2 to 204.2 μm. Angular deviations were between 0.13 and 10.01 degrees. Considering 100 μm and 0.4 degrees as clinically acceptable levels of deviation, 18 studies reported linear/distance/3D deviations larger than 100 μm and only two studies reported angular deviations below 0.4 degrees. The effect of interimplant distance/length of the arch scanned/scanning sequence/scanning range/implant position (nine studies), implant angulation (ten studies), implant depth (five studies), implant connection (two studies), operator experience (six studies), scan body type (three studies), intraoral scanner type (six studies), scanning strategy (two studies) and modification technique (three studies) was investigated.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the included studies, full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners are not sufficiently accurate for clinical application. Accuracy varies greatly with interimplant distance, scan body type, intraoral scanner type and operator experience, whereas implant angulation, implant connections and implant depth have no effect. The effects of scanning strategy and modification technique need further investigation.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Models, Dental; Mouth, Edentulous
PubMed: 34006079
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Dentistry Nov 2023To review the factors that influence the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship at maximum intercuspation (MIP) acquired by using intraoral scanners (IOSs).
OBJECTIVE
To review the factors that influence the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship at maximum intercuspation (MIP) acquired by using intraoral scanners (IOSs).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic search was performed using five databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, World of Science, and Scopus. A manual search was also completed. Studies assessing the factors that influence the MIP acquired by using IOSs were included and organized based on the analyzed factor. Studies were evaluated by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist.
RESULTS
Twenty-nine articles were included. Seven factors have been identified: IOS system, scan extension, edentulous areas, number, location, and extension of occlusal records, occlusal force, tooth mobility, and alignment methods. Nine studies evaluated the influence of IOS system. Four studies assessed the influence of the extension of the arch scan. Three studies evaluated the effect of edentulous spaces. Four studies agreed on the impact of the number, location, and extension of the occlusal records on the MIP accuracy. One study assessed the influence of the occlusal force, showing a smaller average interocclusal space with increased occlusal force. One study evaluated the influence of tooth mobility. Seven studies analyzed the influence of the alignment method on the MIP accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
Most of the studies reported no difference on the MIP accuracy between half- and complete-arch scans. Areas with 2 or more missing teeth reduce the MIP accuracy. A bilateral and frontal record including 2 teeth or a bilateral posterior occlusal including at least 4-teeth is indicated for maximizing the MIP accuracy.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
When a complete-arch intraoral scans is obtained, a bilateral and frontal record including 2 teeth or a bilateral posterior occlusal record including at least 4-teeth is recommended for maximizing the accuracy of the MIP. When a half-arch intraoral scan is acquired, a posterior occlusal record including at least 4-teeth is indicated for optimizing the accuracy of the MIP.
Topics: Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Tooth Mobility; Dental Impression Technique; Models, Dental; Dental Arch; Mouth, Edentulous; Computer-Aided Design
PubMed: 37775027
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104718 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018Working Group 5 was assigned the task to review the current knowledge in the area of digital technologies. Focused questions on accuracy of linear measurements when...
OBJECTIVES
Working Group 5 was assigned the task to review the current knowledge in the area of digital technologies. Focused questions on accuracy of linear measurements when using CBCT, digital vs. conventional implant planning, using digital vs. conventional impressions and assessing the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and patient-related outcome measurements when using s-CAIS were addressed.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The literature was systematically searched, and in total, 232 articles were selected and critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. Four systematic reviews were produced in the four subject areas and amply discussed in the group. After emendation, they were presented to the plenary where after further modification, they were accepted.
RESULTS
Static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), in terms of pain & discomfort, economics and intraoperative complications, is beneficial compared with conventional implant surgery. When using s-CAIS in partially edentulous cases, a higher level of accuracy can be achieved when compared to fully edentulous cases. When using an intraoral scanner in edentulous cases, the results are dependent on the protocol that has been followed. The accuracy of measurements on CBCT scans is software dependent.
CONCLUSIONS
Because the precision intraoral scans and of measurements on CBCT scans and is not high enough to allow for the required accuracy, s-CAIS should be considered as an additional tool for comprehensive diagnosis, treatment planning, and surgical procedures. Flapless s-CAIS can lead to implant placement outside of the zone of keratinized mucosa and thus must be executed with utmost care.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Consensus; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Mouth, Edentulous; Patient Care Planning; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Reproducibility of Results; Software; Surgery, Computer-Assisted
PubMed: 30328201
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13309 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018To identify clinical studies evaluating efficiency and/or effectiveness of digital technologies as compared to conventional manufacturing procedures for the fabrication...
Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review.
OBJECTIVE
To identify clinical studies evaluating efficiency and/or effectiveness of digital technologies as compared to conventional manufacturing procedures for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic search from 1990 through July 2017 was performed using the online databases Medline, Embase, and Cochrane-Central-Register-of-Controlled-Trials. Literature on efficiency and/or effectiveness during the impression session, the manufacturing process, and the delivery session were included.
RESULTS
In total, 12 clinical studies were included. No meta-analysis was performed due to a large heterogeneity of the study protocols. Nine publications reported on posterior single implant crowns (SIC) and three on full-arch reconstructions. Mean impression time with intraoral scanners ranged between 6.7 and 19.8 min, whereas the range for conventional impressions was 8.8 and 18.4 min. In a fully digital workflow (FD-WF) for posterior SIC, mean fabrication time ranged between 46.8 and 54.5 min (prefabricated abutment) and 68.0 min (customized abutment). In a hybrid workflow (H-WF) including a digitally customized abutment and a manual veneering, mean fabrication time ranged between 132.5 and 158.1 min. For a conventional porcelain-fused-to-metal-crown, a mean time of 189.8 min was reported. The mean time for the delivery of posterior SIC ranged between 7.3 and 7.4 min (FD-WF), 10.5 and 12.5 min (H-WF), and 15.3 min (conventional workflow, C-WF). The FD-WF for posterior SIC was more effective than the H-/C-WF.
CONCLUSIONS
The implementation of the studied digital technologies increased time efficiency for the laboratory fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions. For posterior SIC, the model-free fabrication, the use of prefabricated abutments, and the monolithic design was most time efficient and most effective.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans
PubMed: 30306680
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13300 -
The European Journal of Prosthodontics... Feb 2024Additive manufacturing is a tool with potential use in medicine and dentistry. The manufacture of metals and composites is already advanced, however, concerns about...
INTRODUCTION
Additive manufacturing is a tool with potential use in medicine and dentistry. The manufacture of metals and composites is already advanced, however, concerns about titanium hypersensitivity, tissue staining, and corrosion caused by gradual material degradation encourage research into more biocompatible alternatives.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic scoping review aimed to gather studies that evaluated zirconia implants produced by additive manufacturing to describe the current stage of the printing technique and the final product.
METHODS
Searches in Embase, PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were enriched with manual searches between February and March 2021 and updated in June 2022 using keywords: zirconium implants, zirconium oxide, additive manufacturing, rapid prototyping, 3D printing, selective laser melting, and electron beam melting. The criteria included studies that evaluated or described zirconia implants obtained by 3D printing, with a direct relationship to dentistry or orthopedics.
RESULTS
The database search resulted in 671 articles. Eight articles were selected for full reading and remained in this systematic review.
CONCLUSION
The printing technique for zirconia implants is promising. However, further studies are required before implants produced by the printing technique can be tested clinically. The literature with results regarding the impression product is still limited.
Topics: Zirconium; Dental Implants; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Titanium
PubMed: 37721549
DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_2513Kreve11 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry May 2020Different parameters affect the marginal and internal fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs) on natural teeth. Determining a way to optimize these restorations is...
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Different parameters affect the marginal and internal fit of zirconia fixed partial dentures (FPDs) on natural teeth. Determining a way to optimize these restorations is essential.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the variables affecting the marginal fit and internal accuracy of zirconia FPDs on natural teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search was conducted by 2 independent reviewers by using the MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus databases, as well as Google Scholar, for studies published up to July 2018, and a manual search was conducted from the reference lists of related articles. Eligibility criteria included articles in English published in peer-reviewed journals that assessed the marginal and/or internal adaptation of zirconia FPDs on teeth with 3 or more units, with at least 1 of the experimental groups being frameworks or FPDs fabricated from zirconia. Risk of bias was assessed with the aid of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS
The search provided 418 records, with 41 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. The selected studies showed considerable heterogeneity regarding materials, state of sintering, manufacturer and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) system, experimental methodology, sample size, and span length. Of the included articles, 36 were in vitro studies and 5 were clinical studies, most of which exhibited high-performance and detection biases. CAD-CAM systems provided more precise marginal and internal fit than CAM systems. An increase of framework span length to 6 or more units decreased both marginal and internal fit. The reported marginal gap tended to increase after the veneering process. The introduction of a conventional impression into an otherwise digital workflow seems to have a negative effect on the marginal fit.
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of zirconia FPDs or frameworks is considerably influenced by the processing procedure used and the choice of CAD-CAM system.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Denture, Partial, Fixed; Zirconium
PubMed: 31703922
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.019