Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to identify, review, analyze, and summarize available evidence on the accuracy of linear measurements when using maxillofacial cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) specifically in the field of implant dentistry. Material and methods:The search was undertaken in April 2017 in the National Library of Medicine database (Medline) through its online site (PubMed), followed by searches in the Cochrane, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis databases. The main inclusion criterion for studies was that linear CBCT measurements were performed for quantitative assessment (e.g., height, width) of the alveolar bone at edentulous sites or measuring distances from anatomical structures related to implant dentistry. The studies should compare these values to clinical data (humans) or ex vivo and/or experimental (animal) findings from a "gold standard." Results:The initial search yielded 2,516 titles. In total, 22 studies were included in the final analysis. Of those, two were clinical and 20 ex vivo investigations. The major findings of the review indicate that CBCT provides cross-sectional images that demonstrate high accuracy and reliability for bony linear measurements on crosssectional images related to implant treatment. A wide range of error has been reported when performing linear measurements on CBCT images, with both overand underestimation of dimensions in comparison with a gold standard. A voxel size of 0.3 to 0.4 mm is adequate to provide CBCT images of acceptable diagnostic quality for implant treatment planning.Conclusions: CBCT can be considered as an appropriate diagnostic tool for 3D preoperative planning. Nevertheless, a 2 mm safety margin to adjacent anatomic structures should be considered when using CBCT. In clinical practice, the measurement accuracy and reliability of linear measurements on CBCT images are most likely reduced through factors such as patient motion, metallic artefacts, device-specific exposure parameters, the software used, and manual vs. automated procedures. K E Y W O R D SCT imaging, diagnosis/clinical assessment, radiology/imaging This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

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. K E Y W O R D Saccuracy, computer-aided surgery, cone beam computed tomography, intraoral scans, oral implantology, patient-reported outcome measures sidering standardized conditions, and (b) it is crucial to address the software version and used scan protocol for further studies to create a reliable database for accurate statistical analyses.Although in clinical practice, single unit restorations are being performed using a digital workflow, there is a need for further research to conclude if it is a predictable and reliable procedure when compared to the conventional workflow.• There is a lack of literature about the accuracy of different intraoral scan bodies in terms of geometry, dimension, material, and surface characteristics. More studies regarding these aspects should be conducted.• In studies using scan bodies, design, and characteristics should be defined to make studies comparable.• Regarding multiple implant-supported restorations for partially dentate or edentulous cases, different scanning protocols should be developed and compared.The influence of distance between scan bodies, length and geometry of the edentulous span, mucosal morphology, and on the accuracy of digital impressions should be studied.The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies that assessed the accuracy of linear measurements of bone dimensions related to implant...

Objectives:The aim of the present superiority study was to determine the effect of systemic antibiotics primarily on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and post-surgical complications in patients undergoing oral implant therapy with simultaneous guided bone regeneration (GBR). Materials and Methods:A total of 236 medically and periodontally healthy patients received oral implants with simultaneous GBR at seven centres. Pre-operative antibiotics of 2 g amoxicillin were prescribed to the test group 1 hr prior to surgery and 500 mg thrice daily on days 1-3 after surgery. The control group was given a placebo.Group allocation was performed randomly. Primary outcome variables were PROMs recorded as visual analogue scale scores assessed on days 1-7 and 14 on pain, swelling, haematoma and bleeding. Post-operative complications as secondary outcome variables were examined at 1, 2, 4 and 12 weeks from surgery. Chi-square tests and repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) were performed for statistical evaluation. Results:No statistically significant differences (p > .05) between the two groups were detected for the evaluated PROMs. The same was noted with respect to postsurgical complications. Four implants were lost-three in the test group and one in the control group. Conclusion:In this trial, systemic antibiotics did not provide additional benefits to PROMs, nor the prevention of post-surgical complications in medically and periodontally healthy patients undergoing oral implant therapy with simultaneous GBR.However, further studies with larger sample sizes are still required to support the clinical outcomes of this study. | 443PAYER Et Al.

No abstract