Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: digital versus conventional unilateral impressions

3D-printed and conventional provisional single crown fabrication on anterior implants: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The present study aims to compare provisional single crowns on anterior implants made using conventional PMMA and 3D-printed workflows. The study assessed the occurrence of failures, color variation, signs of early deterioration, operating time, and patients' satisfaction with the treatment through a randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

This study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial, following the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines. Patients were included in the study after meeting the eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to one of two groups (conventional and 3D-printed). FDI criteria, visible plaque index (VPI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and color variation were considered as the primary outcomes. Operating time and patient satisfaction were also assessed as secondary outcomes. Fisher's exact test was performed to analyze the association between the primary and secondary outcomes and the study groups. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the mean VAS satisfaction scores between the conventional PMMA and 3D-printed groups (STATA 14™, with an α = 0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 42 provisional single crowns (n = 21) were made for 33 patients. Only the fracture parameter (FDI) showed a statistically significant difference, with 3D-printed provisionals exhibiting higher rates of catastrophic failures compared to conventional ones (p = 0.05). Although the operating time for the 3D-printed group was shorter (p < 0.001), no statistical difference observed in patients' satisfaction regarding esthetics, phonetics, chewing, or comfort.

SIGNIFICANCE

3D-printed and conventional PMMA provisional single crowns showed comparable clinical performance, except for the observed fracture types. Although 3D-printed provisional restorations showed a shorter operating time, overall patients' satisfaction was not affected.

Time efficiency and cost analysis between digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Time and cost are factors that influence a patient's decision on dental prosthetic treatment. Evidence is needed to demonstrate that restoration using digital systems is more rapid and less costly than the conventional process.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze and compare the duration and cost of fixed dental prostheses fabricated using digital and conventional methods from scanning or impression making to delivery of the prosthesis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol (PRISMA-P 2015) guidelines. The analysis methods and inclusion criteria were documented in a protocol registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023458734). The bibliographic search was carried out using PubMed, Cochrane, and PROSPERO databases. The main keywords used were (Prosthodontic OR restorative dentistry OR denture) AND (CAD CAM OR Digital workflow OR Computer Dentistry OR Digital Design) AND (Economic OR cost OR Financial OR time efficiency). Two investigators undertook the different steps of article selection.

RESULTS

A total of 8 articles published between 2010 and 2023 were found for the qualitative synthesis by using the search criteria. Two studies showed that conventional impressions took more time than digital scans for the fabrication of a single crown, and 1 study showed the opposite. One study found that a digital scan was faster than conventional impression making for the fabrication of a 3-unit fixed partial denture, and another study showed the opposite. The dental laboratory technician spent more time on the conventional workflow than the digital workflow for the 3-unit framework and veneering process. No difference was found between conventional and digital workflows for clinical evaluation and chairside adjustment for the fabrication of a single crown. No articles have compared the cost of fixed prostheses.

CONCLUSIONS

The digital pathway can shorten the laboratory process. However, the duration of the impression or scan may vary depending on the technique used. Studies are needed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of the fabrication of tooth-supported restorations.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of digital and conventional impression methods for fixed dentures

BACKGROUND

Digital impression technique or computer-aided impression (CAI) has been recently concluded as a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression method (CIM) in the fabrication of crowns, short fixed partial dentures (FPDs), and implant-supported crowns.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the patients' opinion and subjective perception of two different ways of impression - digital and conventional.

METHODS

A total of 45 patients were treated with CAI and CIM for the fabrication of tooth or implant-supported crowns. They fulfilled a questionnaire including 11 questions regarding the treatment time, gag reflex, discomfort related to manipulation, and other aspects of treatment.

RESULTS

CAI was considered the preferential method for future treatment in 53% of patients, whereas 28.9% of the respondents preferred CIM. The preference for the impression method was influenced by the total time spent with the procedure, discomfort during manipulation with the tray or scanning head, size of the tray or scanning head, maximal opening discomfort, and (the tendency towards) gag reflex.

CONCLUSION

CAI was considered a more comfortable and preferential method. Discomfort or difficulties during CAI negatively affected the patients' attitude to CAI, whereas the difficulties associated with CIM did not have any influence on the preferred method.

Comparative Analysis of the Structural Weights of Fixed Prostheses of Zirconium Dioxide, Metal Ceramic, PMMA and 3DPP Printing Resin-Mechanical Implications

The aim of this study was to determine the mechanical implications of four-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) made of (1) monolithic zirconium dioxide (ZR O2), (2) polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA), (3) metal ceramic (PFM) and (4) impression resin (3DPP).

METHODS

Four groups were studied with eight samples for each material (n: 32). Each structure was weighed, subjected to compressive tests and analyzed using 3D FEA.

RESULTS

PMMA presented the lowest structural weight (1.33 g), followed by 3DPP (1.98 g), ZR O2 (6.34 g) and PFM (6.44 g). In fracture tests, PMMA presented a compressive strength of 2104.73 N and a tension of 351.752 MPa; followed by PFM, with a strength of 1361.48 N and a tension of 227.521 MPa; ZR O2, with a strength of 1107.63 N and a tension of 185.098 MPa; and 3DPP, with a strength of 1000.88 N and a tension of 143.916 MPa. According to 3D FEA, 3DPP presented the lowest degree of deformation (0.001 mm), followed by PFM (0.011 mm), ZR O2 (0.168 mm) and PMMA (1.035 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The weights of the materials did not have a direct influence on the mean values obtained for strength, stress or strain. Since the performance was related to the tension and forces supported by the structures in critical zones, the importance of considering design factors is clear. In vitro and 3D FEA assays allowed us to simulate different scenarios for the mechanical properties of certain materials before evaluating them clinically. Thus, they can generate predictions that would allow for the design of a better research methodology in future clinical trials.

Selective adhesive luting: A novel technique for improving adhesion achieved by universal resin cements

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to introduce the concept of "Selective adhesive luting-SAL" which is explained through clinical steps and supported by preliminary laboratory evidence.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Cementation with rubber dam is difficult to perform in case of short abutment teeth and/or subgingival crown margins. By means of universal resin cements/universal adhesive systems, which can be employed in self-adhesive as well as adhesive luting procedures, this paper presents a novel technique allowing clinicians to perform reliable cementation where rubber dam isolation is difficult. The SAL technique entails the application of a universal adhesive system only on easily accessible abutment surfaces, enabling simultaneous adhesive and self-adhesive luting in different portions of the abutment. The SAL clinical workflow is explained through prosthodontic rehabilitation of maxillary right central incisor affected by microdontia and restored with a lithium-disilicate crown. Furthermore, our laboratory microshear bond strength study supports the rationale behind SAL application demonstrating higher bond strength even when the adhesive resin is placed only on one portion of the cementation substrate.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

This article advocates the application of SAL technique in clinical situations where effective adhesive luting is uncertain, since it can improve the adhesion between the tooth and universal resin cements.

Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression

An accurate impression is vital during prosthodontic rehabilitation. Digital scanning has become an alternative to conventional impressions. This study compares conventional preliminary impression techniques with digital scanning, evaluating the efficiency, treatment comfort, and trueness. Impressions of 28 patients were taken using conventional and digital techniques. The efficiency of both impression techniques was evaluated by measuring the mean working time. A visual analog scale questionnaire (1-10) was used to appreciate the participants' perceptions of discomfort. Morphometric measurements, which were carried out to determine the differences between the casts, were made on the buccolingual cross sections of teeth 11 and 31 and the distolingual and mesiobuccal cusp tips of each first molar. The total treatment time was 75.5 min for conventional and 12 min for digital impressions. The patients scored a mean discomfort assessment of 6.66 for conventional and 9.03 for digital scanning. No significant differences existed between the examined areas (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests) of the digital casts obtained by both techniques. The intraoral scan can be considered as an alternative to conventional preliminary impressions for performing study model analysis during orthodontic treatment planning. The digital impression is more comfortable and accepted by the patients than the conventional impression and has a shorter working time.

Evaluating the clinical behavior of veneered zirconia in comparison with monolithic zirconia complete arch implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Because the use of zirconia in dentistry is relatively new, the number of published studies on the subject is scarce, even though material selection is an important factor in clinical performance. Therefore, a systematic assessment of the impact of the prosthetic material, framework design, veneering material, and manufacturing process is required.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the survival and success rates of feldspathic porcelain veneered zirconia (VZir) in comparison with monolithic zirconia (MZir) complete arch implant-supported prostheses (CAISPs). A secondary objective was to assess the influence of the type of loading, the presence or absence of a cantilever, the type of zirconia used, the location, and the opposing arch on complications rates and patient satisfaction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search of the MEDLINE database (via PubMed), Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey was carried out. The criteria described in the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement were used. The search was restricted from January 2000 to January 2022.

RESULTS

The systematic search resulted in 20 articles that met the established criteria. In total, 751 patients (VZir=302; MZir=449) with 3038 CAISPs (VZir=368; MZir=2670) were analyzed. Higher prosthetic survival and success rates were found in MZir compared with VZir CAISPs (100% and 95.45%, respectively). The meta-analysis found significantly fewer complications related to MZir (9.4% [4.8%-14.1%]) compared with VZir (33.7% [17.5%-49.9%]).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this systematic review, MZir CAISPs had higher survival and success rates than VZir CAISPs, with significantly fewer prosthetic complications. The influence of factors such as the type of functional loading, the presence of a cantilever, the material used in the prosthodontic workflow, the location of the CAISP, and the type of antagonist arch on the performance of Zir CAISPs remains unclear.

Trueness of 3-dimensionally printed complete arch implant analog casts

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although a completely digital workflow has numerous advantages, a physical definitive cast may be especially helpful for the accurate assembly of components of complex complete arch-fixed prostheses, the evaluation of esthetic and occlusion features, or prosthesis fabrication. Research on the accuracy of additive complete arch casts with implants positioned with a large anterior-posterior (A-P) spread is sparse.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness of complete arch 4-implant analog casts with a large A-P distribution fabricated with different 3-dimensional (3D) printers.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten systems were evaluated representing currently available printing technologies and materials for the additive fabrication of complete arch 4-implant analog casts and compared for deviations in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes from the master model scan (MMS), recorded in standard tessellation language (STL). The MMS was provided to the laboratory selected by the manufacturer, permitting them to create their specific cast with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacture specific to a particular system, including analog receptacle offset settings. Laboratories fabricated N=10 casts and affixed analogs. A conventional splinted impression and stone cast (CON) was fabricated as a control. The casts were scanned with a precision laboratory scanner (D2000; 3Shape A/S), and files were imported into the Convince metrology software program (3Shape A/S) for comparison with the MMS for mean deviations in the X-, Y-, and Z- axes. A 2-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD comparison tests were performed between system groups and the 4 implant locations (α=.05). Comparative color maps were used to determine dimensional changes of the edentulous ridges.

RESULTS

For 2-dimensional deviations from the MMS in each of the 3 axes, the printer type, implant location, and interaction between those 2 variables were found to be statistically significant (P<.05). Comparisons among printers showed the smallest deviations for Asiga Pro 4K (ASG) and Stratasys Origin One (ORI) printers in both the X- and Y-axes and for CON in the Z-axis. For 3D deviations, comparison among printers indicated that ORI, SprintRay Pro55 S (SPR), and Ackuretta SOL (ACK) had the largest deviations, whereas CON and ASG showed the smallest deviations. Comparison color mapping demonstrates a disparity between printed model dimensional changes and implant analog positioning since the color maps of the casts' ridge crests were not in concordance with the results of the implant analog deviations.

CONCLUSIONS

ASG, 3D Systems ProJet MJP 2500 Plus (MJP), 3D Systems NextDent 5100 (NEX), Stratasys J5 DentaJet (PJ5), Ivoclar PrograPrint PR5 (PR5), and Prodways ProMaker LD20 (PWY) were similar in terms of 3D deviations to the conventional stone cast control. Comparative color mapping showed the direction and quantity of the dimensional changes of the ridge crest frequently did not correlate with the 3D deviations of implant analog positioning. Implant analog insertion errors were predominantly responsible for analog position 3D deviations rather than the polymerization shrinkage of additive photopolymers.

Long-term survival of monolithic tooth-supported lithium disilicate crowns fabricated using a chairside approach: 15-year results

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the clinical performance of chairside fabricated tooth-supported posterior single crowns from lithium disilicate ceramic.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-four crowns (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were inserted between 2006 and 2007 and again evaluated after 15 years. Survival and success rates were calculated according to Kaplan-Meier, and the quality of the crowns was evaluated by using modified United States Public Health (USPHS) criteria.

RESULTS

Twenty-two crowns were available for recall; six patients were defined as dropouts. The mean observation period was 15.2 years (± 0.2). Six failures occurred (1 technical/5 biological) resulting in a survival rate of 80.1%. The success rate was 64.2%. The roughness of the crowns increased (p = 0.021) and the majority of adhesive gaps were discolored (p = 0.001) in comparison to baseline. The color, tooth, and crown integrity remained stable over the follow-up period (p ≥ 0.317).

CONCLUSION

The fabrication of tooth-supported lithium disilicate crowns using a chairside approach yielded acceptable long-term survival and success rates. Due to discoloration, the long-term use of dual-cure self-adhesive resin cements might result in unpleasing esthetic results.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The performance of posterior lithium disilicate single crowns revealed excellent to good clinical quality and an acceptable number of events after 15 years of clinical service.

Long-term survival and success of zirconia screw-retained implant-supported prostheses for up to 12 years: A retrospective multicenter study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Despite the broad clinical application of zirconia for fixed implant-supported prostheses, evidence of long-term performance is sparse.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of zirconia-based partial and complete screw-retained implant-supported zirconia fixed dental prostheses (ISZFDPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Records of patients treated with dental implants and ISZFDPs between December 2004 and June 2017 were screened. Eligible study participants, according to inclusion criteria, were contacted and invited to undergo clinical and radiographic examinations. Outcomes were evaluated as implant and prosthetic survival rates, prosthetic success rate, complications, marginal bone level (MBL) change, and soft tissue condition. Along with the effects of zirconia prosthesis type and level, the effects of implant type and connection, type of loading, and follow-up on MBL were tested with a generalized linear effects model (GLEM) (α=.05).

RESULTS

A total of 118 patients were identified, of whom 20 (16.9%) were not available for clinical examination for various reasons. Ninety-eight participants (mean age 60.7 ±11.7 years) with 337 implants were included, of which 176 (52.2%) had been immediately loaded. A total of 111 ISZFDPs (96 zirconia connection and 15 titanium base) were investigated: 24 complete ISZFDPs with a zirconia connection (12.9 ±0.97 dental units, minimum 12, maximum 14), 72 partial with a zirconia connection (3.11 ±1.12, minimum 2, maximum 7), 15 partial with a titanium base (3.62 ±1.02, minimum 2, maximum 5). Forty ISZFDPs had been in function for ≥10 years (36%), 38 for 5 to 9 years (34.2%), and 33 for 2 to 4 years (22.8%). The mean follow-up time was 7.2 ±3.4 years. No zirconia fractures were identified. Two implants and 2 ISZFDPs failed, with chipping being the most common complication (13.5%). The implant survival rate was 99.4%, and the prosthetic survival rate was 98.2%. The cumulative prosthetic success rate was 91.9%. MBL change was -0.18 ±0.59 mm. Thirteen implants were treated for peri-implantitis (3.8%), and 9 for mucositis (2.7%), but presented healthy peri-implant soft tissues at the follow-up examination. A significant difference was found between the implant-level and abutment-level prostheses (P=.013), with less marginal bone loss observed in ISZFDPs delivered at the implant level.

CONCLUSIONS

Zirconia-based screw-retained implant-supported prosthesis can be considered a reliable long-term treatment option for partial and complete edentulism. No zirconia fractures were experienced. Stable bone levels and low peri-implantitis rates were reported regardless of the ISZFDP type and level, implant type and connection, and type of loading.

Time efficiency and efficacy of a centralized computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing workflow for implant crown fabrication: A prospective controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To assess time efficiency and the efficacy of the prosthetic manufacturing for implant crown fabrication in a centralized workflow applying computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-nine patients with one posterior implant each, were randomly allocated to either a centralized digital workflow (c-DW, test) or a laboratory digital workflow (l-DW, control). Patients were excluded from efficiency and efficacy analyses, if any additional restoration than this single implant crown had to be fabricated. A customized titanium abutment and a monolithic zirconia crown were fabricated in the c-DW. In the l-DW, models were digitalized for CAD-CAM fabrication of a monolithic zirconia crown using a standardized titanium base abutment. Time for impression, laboratory operating and delivery time were recorded. The efficacy of the prosthetic manufacturing was evaluated at try-in and at delivery. Data was analyzed descriptively. Statistical analyses using student's unpaired t- and paired Wilcoxon were performed (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

At impression taking, 12 patients (c-DW) and 19 patients (l-DW) were included. The impression time was 9.4±3.5 min (c-DW) and 15.1 ± 4.6 min (l-DW) (p < 0.05). The laboratory operating time was 130 ± 31 min (c-DW) and 218.0±8 min (l-DW) (p < 0.05). The delivery time was significantly longer in the c-DW (5.9 ± 3.5 1 days) as compared to the l-DW (0.5±0.05 days). At try-in and at delivery, efficacy of prosthetic manufacturing was similar high in both workflows.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The c-DW was more time efficient compared to the lab-DW and rendered a similar efficacy of prosthetic manufacturing.

Outcome measurements and quality of randomized controlled clinical trials of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review and qualitative analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The lack of consensus regarding a standardized set of outcome measurements and noncompliance with current reporting guidelines in clinical trials of tooth-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) hamper interstudy comparability, compromise scientific evidence, and waste research effort and resources in prosthetic dentistry.

PURPOSE

The primary objective of this systematic review was to identify all primary and secondary outcome measurements assessed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of tooth-supported FDPs. Secondary objectives were to assess their methodological quality by using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool (RoB, v2.0) and their reporting quality by means of a standardized 16-item CONSORT assessment tool through published reports.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library to identify all RCT-related articles published in the past 10 years. Differences in RoB were tested with the Pearson chi-square test, and those in CONSORT score with the Student t test.

RESULTS

A total of 64 RCTs from 79 publications were deemed eligible. The diversity of outcome measures used in the field is apparent. Twenty percent of the included studies had a low RoB, 79% showed some concerns, and 1% had a high RoB. The mean ±standard deviation CONSORT compliance score was 22.56 ±3.17. Trials adhered to the CONSORT statement reported lower RoB than those that did not adhere (P<.001). RCTs with a low RoB reported more comprehensive adherence to CONSORT guidelines than those with some concerns (MD 4 [95% CI 1.52-6.48]; P=.004).

CONCLUSIONS

A standardized core outcome reporting set in clinical research on tooth-supported FDPs remains evident. Adherence to the CONSORT statement continues to be low, with some RoB concerns that can be improved.

Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P < .05).

RESULTS

The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) (P < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) (P < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P < .005).

CONCLUSION

Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.

Effect of Implant Angulation on the Rotational Displacement of a 3-Unit Bridge after Digital Impression

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the effect of implant angulation on the rotational displacement of a 3-unit bridge following a digital impression.

Materials and Methods

This in vitro experimental study evaluated 3 master models of the maxilla with Kennedy's class III partial edentulism and bilateral three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Two implants were placed with 0° (first model), 15° (second model), and 30° (third model) interimplant angles. The implants were placed bilaterally at the sites of first premolars and first molars from the posterior towards the anterior region and coded A (posterior) and B (anterior) in the left, and C (posterior) and D (anterior) in the right side. Next, their position was recorded using a coordinate measuring machine to serve as a reference. The models were then scanned by both 3Shape and Sirona digital scanners (12 times by each scanner). The obtained data were compared with the reference data three-dimensionally using GOM Inspect software to determine the rotational displacement of the implants. Data were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, paired sample t-test, and independent sample t-test (P < 0.05).

Results

Since repeated-measures ANOVA showed that the interaction effect was significant (P = 0.010), the data were analyzed by subgroup analysis. The 3Shape scanner showed significantly higher accuracy for C-D region in model 2 (P = 0.001), and A-B region in model 1 (P ≤ 0.01). In the use of the 3Shape scanner, model 3 showed a lower error rate in the A-B region, compared with models 1 and 2. Model 1 showed higher error rate than models 2 and 3 in the C-D region (P ≤ 0.01). In the use of the Sirona scanner, model 1 showed a higher error rate than models 2 (P = 0.031) and 3 (P = 0.004) in the C-D region.

Conclusion

In digital impressions of angulated implants in 3-unit bridges by using 3Shape and Sirona scanners, the rotational error decreases as the interimplant angle increases.

Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether intraoral scanning (IOS) is able to reduce working time and improve patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared to conventional impression (CI) techniques, taking into account the size of the scanned area. The secondary aim was to verify the effectiveness of IOS procedures based on available prosthodontic outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to collect evidence concerning the outcomes of IOS and CI performed during the treatment of partially and complete edentulous patients for tooth- or implant-supported restorations. Qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the time efficiency and PROMs produced by the two different techniques. Clinical prosthodontic outcomes were analyzed among the included studies when available.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (9 randomized controlled trials and 8 prospective clinical studies) were selected for qualitative synthesis. The 17 included studies provided data from 430 IOS and 370 CI performed in 437 patients. A total of 7 different IOS systems and their various updated versions were used for digital impressions. The results demonstrated that IOS was overall faster than CI independent of whether quadrant or complete-arch scanning was utilized, regardless of the nature of the restoration (tooth or implant supported). IOS was generally preferred over CI regardless of the size of the scanned area and nature of the restoration (tooth- or implant-supported). Similar prosthodontic outcomes were reported for workflows implementing CI and IOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this systematic review, IOS is faster than CI, independent of whether a quadrant or complete arch scan is conducted. IOS can improve the patient experience measured by overall preference and comfort and is able to provide reliable prosthodontic outcomes.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Reduced procedure working time associated with the use of IOS can improve clinical efficiency and the patient experience during impression procedures. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an essential component of evidence-based dental practice as they allow the evaluation of therapeutic modalities from the perspective of the patient. IOS is generally preferred by patients over conventional impressions.

Patient-related outcomes of conventional impression making versus intraoral scanning for prosthetic rehabilitation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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 I² 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.

Time Efficiency of Digitally and Conventionally Produced Single-Unit Restorations

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the time efficiency of digital chairside and labside workflows with a conventional workflow for single-unit restorations. The time efficiency in this specific sense was defined as the time, which has to be spent in a dental office by a dental professional performing the relevant steps. A model with interchangeable teeth on position 36 was created. These teeth were differently prepared, responding to several clinical situations to perform single-unit restorations. Different manufacturing techniques were used: For the digital workflows, CEREC Omnicam (CER) and Trios 3 (TN/TI) were used. The conventional workflow, using a dual-arch tray impression technique, served as the control group. For the labside workflow (_L) and the conventional impression procedure (CO), the time necessary for the impressions and temporary restorations was recorded and served as operating time. The chairside workflow time was divided by the time for the entire workflow (_C) including scan, design, milling and finishing the milled restoration, and in the actual working time (_CW) leaving out the chairside milling of the restoration. Labside workflow time ranged from 9 min 27 s (CER_L) to 12 min 41 s (TI_L). Entire chairside time ranged from 43 min 35 s (CER_C) to 58 min 43 s (TI_C). Pure chairside working time ranged from 15 min 21 s (CER_CW) to 23 min 17 s (TI_CW). Conventional workflow time was 10 min 39 s (CO) on average. The digital labside workflow and the conventional workflow require a similar amount of time. The digital chairside workflow is more time consuming.

Clinical performance of intraoral digital impression for fixed prosthodontics: a Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the clinical performance of the intraoral digital impression (IDI) in the fixed prosthodontics.

METHODS

Databases of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CNKI were searched for randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the use of IDI in fixed prosthodontics until May 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. A Meta-analysis was conducted when available.

RESULTS

Eleven RCTs involving 618 patients were included in this study. A total of 2 and 3 studies had low and high risks of bias, respectively, and other included studies had a medium risk of bias. Results illustrated that the IDI group could shorten the impression-taken time [SMD=-5.63, 95%CI (-11.25, -0.01), P=0.05] and improve the accuracy of the marginal fit [SMD=-0.53, 95%CI (-0.84, -0.22), P=0.000 7] compared with the conventional impression group. However, no significant difference was observed in the internal fit.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence indicated a good clinical performance of IDI for fixed prosthodontics. Notably, high-quality studies are expected to further support the conclusion.

Effect of Impression Technique and Operator Experience on Impression Time and Operator-Reported Outcomes

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of impression technique (conventional preliminary alginate and digital scan) and operator experience in impression making (experienced in digital and conventional, experienced in conventional and inexperienced in digital, and inexperienced in conventional and digital) on impression time, satisfaction and stress levels, and the preference of the operators.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One patient was assigned for each of the 60 operators, who were experienced in impression techniques at different levels (Group 1: experienced in conventional and digital, Group 2: experienced in conventional and inexperienced in digital, Group 3: inexperienced in conventional and digital). They made conventional impressions (irreversible hydrocolloid) and digital scans (Trios 3) from the same patient. The impression times were recorded at each step (patient registration, maxillary arch, mandibular arch, and bite registration) and in total. A visual analog scale (VAS) was used for the operator satisfaction for applicability, comfort, and hygiene; the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory form (STAI-TX1) was used for stress, and a questionnaire was completed to measure the operator's impression preference. The data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA and Chi-square test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

A significant interaction was found between the operator experience in impression making and the impression technique on time for maxillary and mandibular arch impressions and total time (p ≤ 0.002). Operator experience and impression technique interaction had a significant effect on comfort and average VAS scores (p ≤ 0.016). Whereas, no significant effect of this interaction was found on stress (p ≥ 0.195). Operator experience in impression making had a significant effect on applicability (p < 0.001), and the impression technique had a significant effect on hygiene VAS scores (p < 0.001). Operators in Group 1 and Group 3 preferred the digital scans, however, operators in Group 2 had no preference (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Operator experience in impression making and impression technique had varying effects on clinician's impression time, comfort, applicability, hygiene, and preference. Operators needed less time for the impressions they were experienced with. Operator stress level was not affected by the operator experience in impression making and the impression technique. Dental students and operators experienced in both techniques were satisfied with the digital scans and they preferred digital scans. Operators experienced with conventional impressions were satisfied with conventional impressions but didn't have a preference for the impression type.

3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic 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.

Randomized clinical trial of a conventional and a digital workflow for the fabrication of interim crowns: An evaluation of treatment efficiency, fit, and the effect of clinician experience

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Limited information is available regarding the fabrication of tooth-supported interim single crowns (SCs) with either a digital or a conventional workflow.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the time efficiency and fit of interim crowns fabricated by using either a digital or a conventional workflow.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty participants in need of posterior tooth-supported SCs were enrolled and randomly allocated to either the digital or conventional group. In the digital group, the interim SCs were fabricated by using digital sextant scans and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology without definitive casts. The conventional group included conventional impressions and direct fabrication of the interim restorations intraorally. Five experienced and 5 less experienced clinicians were randomly assigned to fabricate the interim SCs. The total fabrication time (laboratory and clinical) was recorded for time efficiency. The fit assessment included marginal fit, proximal contact, occlusal contact, and crown morphology. The evaluated parameters were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U Test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The digital workflow required significantly less total fabrication time (laboratory and clinical) than the conventional workflow (P<.001). The less-experienced clinicians needed longer clinical time with the conventional workflow than the experienced ones (P=.023). In contrast, the laboratory time and total fabrication time were shorter for less-experienced clinicians using the digital workflow (P=.005 and P=.015). The interim SCs fabricated with the digital workflow had significantly better fit and occlusal contacts than those fabricated with the conventional workflow (P=.005 and P<.001). With the digital workflow, the interim SCs made by less-experienced clinicians were of the same quality as those made by experienced clinicians. When using the conventional workflow, the fit of the experienced clinicians was significantly better than that of the less-experienced clinicians.

CONCLUSIONS

The interim SCs fabricated with a digital workflow required a shorter fabrication time and resulted in better fit than those fabricated with a conventional workflow, especially for less-experienced clinicians.

Fabricating a crown under an existing removable partial denture with impression scanning and CAD-CAM technology

Retrofitting a new crown to an existing removable partial denture (RPD) is a challenging procedure. Recently, intraoral scanners (IOSs) have been successfully used to solve this issue. However, purchase of IOSs is necessary, and most clinicians still use the conventional impression technique. This article describes a combined conventional and digital approach to fabricating a new crown under an RPD without an IOS.

Digital versus conventional impression method in children: Comfort, preference and time

BACKGROUND

The comfortness and effectiveness of digital and conventional impression methods in children have not yet been compared.

AIM

To assess the digital and conventional impression methods in children in terms of comfort, preference, and the time required to take impressions.

DESIGN

Digital impressions were taken by using an intraoral scanner, and conventional impressions were taken by using alginate from 28 patients by the same operator. In each impression-taking-process, comfort was assessed by both the children and the clinician, and the chairside times were written. Student's t tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses, and P < .05 was considered to be significant.

RESULTS

The digital impression was considered to be more comfortable in the assessments by both the children and the clinician (P < .001). The total time the digital impression took was 465.89 ± 76.71 second(s) while that of the conventional impression was 450.25 ± 64.08 s when the chairside times of the two impression methods were compared. There was no statistically significant difference (P = .41).

CONCLUSION

The digital impression method compared with the conventional impression method was found to be both more comfortable and preferable by the children, but there was no difference in terms of the time required to take impressions.

Digital versus conventional impressions for full-coverage restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of this systematic review was to investigate the survival of full-coverage restorations fabricated by using digital impressions (DIs) versus that of those fabricated by using conventional impressions. The authors also compared secondary outcomes of marginal and internal fit and occlusal and interproximal contacts.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED

The authors conducted a systematic literature search in multiple databases to identify clinical trials with no restrictions by publication type, date, or language. The authors assessed study-level risk of bias and outcome-level strength of evidence. The authors performed a meta-analysis by using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. The authors identified no studies in which the investigators compared the impression techniques with respect to survival of full-coverage restorations. Mean differences for marginal gap and internal gap were -9.0 micrometers (95% confidence interval, -18.9 to 0.9) and -15.6 μm (95% confidence interval, -42.6 to 11.4), respectively. Studies assessing internal gap were substantially heterogeneous (I² = 72%; P = .003).

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Research is lacking to draw robust conclusions about the relative benefits of DIs in terms of restoration survival. Low-quality evidence for marginal fit and internal fit suggested similar performance for both techniques. Evidence quality for interproximal contact and occlusal contact was very low and insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding how the impression techniques compared. Given the uncertainty of the evidence, results should be interpreted with caution. With increasing popularity and adoption of digital scanners by dentists, pragmatic practice-based trials involving standardized, patient-centered outcomes may improve confidence in the comparative effectiveness of DIs.

Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient-centered outcomes

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this intrasubject clinical study was to measure and compare prosthodontic and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the fabrication of implant-supported, all-ceramic single crowns with a full digital workflow and a conventional workflow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-one patients were subjected to first a digital (test group) and then a conventional impression (control group) at the same visit. From the intraoral optical scanner (IOS), a screw-retained, monolithic crown was delivered according to a complete digital workflow (no cast), whereas a veneered crown on a zirconia (Zi) frame was provided as a control treatment. Both crowns were assessed during the clinical stages of try-in. Prosthodontic outcomes (contact points, occlusion, PROMs, and esthetic results using the white esthetic score [WES]) were assessed.

RESULTS

Occlusion and interproximal contacts showed comparable results for the two workflows (p = 0.37 and p = 0.36, respectively), whereas the global WES was significantly higher (p < 0.0001) in the control group. Patient satisfaction scores, using visual analog scales (VAS), were significantly better for IOS than for conventional impressions (p = 0.0098). On the contrary, patients' perception of the esthetic outcomes showed significantly higher value (p < 0.0001) in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Both workflows allowed the delivery of ceramic crowns within two appointments. The clinical fit was acceptable in both groups. A better esthetic outcome, in both patients' and clinicians' opinions, was found in the control group. PROMs showed higher satisfaction with the IOS.

Learning curve of intraoral scanning by prosthodontic residents

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The use of intraoral scanning (IOS) to replace conventional impressions has become popular. However, the learning time required to use these devices effectively is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the learning rate, plateau, and difficulty level over repetitive IOS among prosthodontic residents.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty participants with no experience of IOS were recruited. Maxillary and mandibular typodont casts were attached to a manikin head. Participants received training on the IOS device (Omnicam; Dentsply Sirona) and performed maxillary, mandibular, and buccal IOS for 9 trials. The time required for scanning (ST) and the perception of difficulty were recorded. The percentage ratio of time for each trial to the best performance was calculated. A nonlinear regression model was used to estimate the learning plateau and rate.

RESULTS

The findings for maxillary, mandibular, buccal, and total IOS were as follows: ST: 106 ±40 seconds (69 ±24%), 96 ±34 seconds (68 ±22%), 74 ±31 seconds (65 ±22%), and 276 ±88 seconds (72 ±20%); learning plateau: 83.40%, 80.60%, 74.30%, and 85.10%; learning rate: 5.37, 5.01, 3.81, and 4.98. With repetition of the trials, the difficulty level decreased from 6 to 4.

CONCLUSIONS

The repetitive use of IOS showed a learning phase of 5 trials to achieve competence of 80% of their best performance. The scanning time and difficulty level decreased with the repetitive use of IOS.

A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and metal-ceramic multiple-unit fixed dental prostheses

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present review was to compare the outcomes, that is, survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic and/or monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) with metal-ceramic FDPs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic MEDLINE search complemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective cohort studies and retrospective case series on implant-supported FDPs with a mean follow-up of at least 3 years. Patients had to have been examined clinically at the follow-up visit. Assessment of the identified studies and data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Failure and complication rates were analyzed using robust Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates of 5-year proportions.

RESULTS

The search provided 5,263 titles and 455 abstracts. Full-text analysis was performed for 240 articles resulting in 19 studies on implant FDPs that met the inclusion criteria. The studies reported on 932 metal-ceramic and 175 zirconia-ceramic FDPs. Meta-analysis revealed an estimated 5-year survival rate of 98.7% (95% CI: 96.8%-99.5%) for metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs, and of 93.0% (95% CI: 90.6%-94.8%) for zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs (p < 0.001). Thirteen studies including 781 metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs estimated a 5-year rate of ceramic fractures and chippings to be 11.6% compared with a significantly higher (p < 0.001) complication rate for zirconia implant-supported FDPs of 50%, reported in a small study with 13 zirconia implant-supported FDPs. Significantly (p = 0.001) more, that is, 4.1%, of the zirconia-ceramic implant-supported FDPs were lost due to ceramic fractures compared to only 0.2% of the metal-ceramic implant-supported FDPs. Detailed analysis of factors like number of units of the FDPs or location in the jaws was not possible due to heterogeneity of reporting. No studies on monolithic zirconia implant-supported FDPs fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the present review. Furthermore, no conclusive results were found for the aesthetic outcomes of both FDP-types.

CONCLUSION

For implant-supported FDPs, conventionally veneered zirconia should not be considered as material selection of first priority, as pronounced risk for framework fractures and chipping of the zirconia veneering ceramic was observed. Monolithic zirconia may be an interesting alternative, but its clinical medium- to long-term outcomes have not been evaluated yet. Hence, metal ceramics seems to stay the golden standard for implant-supported multiple-unit FDPs.

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.

Use of Digital-Conventional Method for Managing a Patient with Severely Worn Dentition: A Clinical Report

Severe forms of attrition are frequently found in patients with no or insufficient posterior occlusal support. Management of such patients using fixed or removable prostheses is a complex procedure and is still a challenge for clinicians. The present clinical report describes step by step full mouth rehabilitation of a patient with severely worn dentition using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing- (CAD/CAM-) generated wax patterns, milled zirconia frameworks, and fabrication of removable partial denture (RPD) abutments using a digital-conventional method. The results were satisfactory during 18 months of follow-up.

Digital and conventional impressions have similar working times

Data sourcesMedline, Cochrane, Science Direct, Scopus and Embase were electronically searched and complemented with hand searches. Studies published from 1955 to July 2016 were considered.Study selectionClinical studies (prospective, retrospective and RCTs) relating to digital implant or tooth impression techniques, comparing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and procedure working times compared to conventional impression techniques were considered. The following exclusions were adhered to; in vitro studies, ex vivo studies, systematic reviews, clinical cases, animal studies and any studies not comparing digital and conventional impression techniques.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction was carried out independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane⁴ tool for RCTs and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-RCTs. In all 2943 publications were reviewed following the initial electronic search, of which 2916 were excluded at this stage. A qualitative analysis was conducted.ResultsFive studies were included; all three of the RCTs included were at high' risk of bias and the observational studies were judged to have a methodology of medium quality. Given the differences in the studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed. Three studies conducted involved implant supported prostheses only, two reported on tooth supported prostheses with a total of 155 participants included. Four studies comparing PROMs between the different impression techniques reported, a digital impression technique reduced anxiety and nausea, being considered more comfortable than a conventional impression technique. The remaining study reported no difference in patient comfort when comparing techniques.^3,6,7,8 With respect to procedure working time three studies reported that the digital impression technique required less time;^3,6,7 conversely two studies reported less time for the conventional technique.^2,8ConclusionsThis systematic review draws two conclusions; working times are similar for both conventional and digital impression techniques and patients prefer the experience of digital to conventional impressions. It does acknowledge the lack of relevant studies in this area.

Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic posterior fixed partial dentures. Part II: Time efficiency of CAD-CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Clinical trials are needed to evaluate the digital and conventional fabrication technology for providing fixed partial dentures (FPDs).

PURPOSE

The purpose of the second part of this clinical study was to compare the laboratory production time for tooth-supported, 3-unit FPDs by means of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems and a conventional workflow. In addition, the quality of the 3-unit framework of each treatment group was evaluated clinically.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For each of 10 participants, a 3-unit FPD was fabricated. Zirconia was used as the framework material in the CAD-CAM systems and included Lava C.O.S. CAD software (3M) and centralized CAM (group L); CARES CAD software (Institut Straumann AG) and centralized CAM (group iT); and CEREC Connect CAD software (Dentsply Sirona) and centralized CAM (group C). The noble metal framework in the conventional workflow (group K) was fabricated by means of the traditional lost-wax technique. All frameworks were evaluated clinically before veneering. The time for the fabrication of the cast, the 3-unit framework, and the veneering process was recorded. In addition, chairside time during the clinical appointment for the evaluation of the framework was recorded. The paired Wilcoxon test together with appropriate Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences among treatment groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

The total effective working time (mean ±standard deviation) for the dental technician was 220 ±29 minutes in group L, 217 ±23 minutes in group iT, 262 ±22 minutes in group C, and 370 ±34 minutes in group K. The dental technician spent significantly more time in the conventional workflow than in the digital workflow, independent of the CAD-CAM systems used (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of the CAD-CAM system, the overall laboratory time for the dental technician was significantly less for a digital workflow than for the conventional workflow.

We're Going Digital: The Current State of CAD/CAM Dentistry in Prosthodontics

This paper reviews the current state of computer-aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in dentistry, with a special focus on restorative dental applications. The potential, advantages, and limitations of the technology will be discussed, comparing the digital workflow to conventional techniques, based on contemporary clinical evidence. The technology does seem to offer a more streamlined and efficient means of treatment planning and delivery of care through reduced chairside time, with reported improved patient satisfaction. Nonetheless, the accuracy and treatment outcomes of CAD/CAM treatment modalities are inconsistent and do not support a superior performance to existing conventional techniques, rather a comparable one.

Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature

BACKGROUND

Intraoral scanners (IOS) are devices for capturing direct optical impressions in dentistry. The purpose of this narrative review on the use of IOS was to: (1) identify the advantages/disadvantages of using optical impressions compared to conventional impressions; (2) investigate if optical impressions are as accurate as conventional impressions; (3) evaluate the differences between the IOS currently available commercially; (4) determine the current clinical applications/limitations in the use of IOS.

METHODS

Electronic database searches were performed using specific keywords and MeSH terms. The searches were confined to full-text articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2007 and June 2017.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-two studies were included in the present review; among them, 20 were previous literature reviews, 78 were in vivo clinical studies (6 randomized controlled/crossover trials, 31 controlled/comparative studies; 24 cohort studies/case series; 17 case reports) and 34 were in vitro comparative studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Optical impressions reduce patient discomfort; IOS are time-efficient and simplify clinical procedures for the dentist, eliminating plaster models and allowing better communication with the dental technician and with patients; however, with IOS, it can be difficult to detect deep margin lines in prepared teeth and/or in case of bleeding, there is a learning curve, and there are purchasing and managing costs. The current IOS are sufficiently accurate for capturing impressions for fabricating a whole series of prosthetic restorations (inlays/onlays, copings and frameworks, single crowns and fixed partial dentures) on both natural teeth and implants; in addition, they can be used for smile design, and to fabricate posts and cores, removable partial prostheses and obturators. The literature to date does not support the use of IOS in long-span restorations with natural teeth or implants. Finally, IOS can be integrated in implant dentistry for guided surgery and in orthodontics for fabricating aligners and custom-made devices.

Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic 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.

Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part II: CAD-CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Clinical studies are needed to evaluate the entire digital and conventional workflows in prosthetic dentistry.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the second part of this clinical study was to compare the laboratory production time for tooth-supported single crowns made with 4 different digital workflows and 1 conventional workflow and to compare these crowns clinically.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For each of 10 participants, a monolithic crown was fabricated in lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramic (IPS e.max CAD). The computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems were Lava C.O.S. CAD software and centralized CAM (group L), Cares CAD software and centralized CAM (group iT), Cerec Connect CAD software and lab side CAM (group CiL), and Cerec Connect CAD software with centralized CAM (group CiD). The conventional fabrication (group K) included a wax pattern of the crown and heat pressing according to the lost-wax technique (IPS e.max Press). The time for the fabrication of the casts and the crowns was recorded. Subsequently, the crowns were clinically evaluated and the corresponding treatment times were recorded. The Paired Wilcoxon test with the Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences among treatment groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

The total mean (±standard deviation) active working time for the dental technician was 88 ±6 minutes in group L, 74 ±12 minutes in group iT, 74 ±5 minutes in group CiL, 92 ±8 minutes in group CiD, and 148 ±11 minutes in group K. The dental technician spent significantly more working time for the conventional workflow than for the digital workflows (P<.001). No statistically significant differences were found between group L and group CiD or between group iT and group CiL. No statistical differences in time for the clinical evaluation were found among groups, indicating similar outcomes (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of the CAD-CAM system, the overall laboratory working time for a digital workflow was significantly shorter than for the conventional workflow, since the dental technician needed less active working time.

Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Trials comparing the overall performance of digital with that of conventional workflows in restorative dentistry are needed.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the third part of a series of investigations was to test whether the marginal and internal fit of monolithic crowns fabricated with fully digital workflows differed from that of crowns fabricated with the conventional workflow.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In each of 10 participants, 5 monolithic lithium disilicate crowns were fabricated for the same abutment tooth according to a randomly generated sequence. Digital workflows were applied for the fabrication of 4 crowns using the Lava, iTero, Cerec inLab, and Cerec infinident systems. The conventional workflow included a polyvinyl siloxane impression, manual waxing, and heat-press technique. The discrepancy between the crown and the tooth was registered using the replica technique with polyvinyl siloxane material. The dimensions of the marginal discrepancy (Discrepancy_marginal) and the internal discrepancy in 4 different regions of interest (Discrepancy_shoulder, Discrepancy_axial, Discrepancy_cusp, and Discrepancy_occlusal) were assessed using light microscopy. Post hoc Student t test with Bonferroni correction was applied to detect differences (α=.05).

RESULTS

Discrepancy_marginal was 83.6 ±51.1 μm for the Cerec infinident, 90.4 ±66.1 μm for the conventional, 94.3 ±58.3 μm for the Lava, 127.8 ±58.3 μm for the iTero, and 141.5 ±106.2 μm for the Cerec inLab workflow. The differences between the treatment modalities were not statistically significant (P>.05). Discrepancy_shoulder was 82.2 ±42.4 μm for the Cerec infinident, 97.2 ±63.8 μm for the conventional, 103.4 ±52.0 μm for the Lava, 133.5 ±73.0 μm for the iTero, and 140.0 ±86.6 μm for the Cerec inLab workflow. Only the differences between the Cerec infinident and the Cerec inLab were statistically significant (P=.036). The conventionally fabricated crowns revealed significantly lower values in Discrepancy_cusp and Discrepancy_occlusal than all the crowns fabricated with digital workflows (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of marginal crown fit, no significant differences were found between the conventional and digital workflows for the fabrication of monolithic lithium disilicate crowns. In the occlusal regions, the conventionally manufactured crowns revealed better fit than the digitally fabricated crowns. Chairside milling resulted in less favorable crown fit than centralized milling production.