The goal of the study was to evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL) after 1-year implant placement using a guided implant surgical (GIS) protocol in grafted sockets compared to non-grafted sites. We followed a parallel study design with patients divided into two groups: grafted group (Test group, n = 10) and non-grafted group (Control, n = 10). A bioactive glass bone graft was used for grafting. A single edentulous site with a minimum bone height ≥11 mm and bone width ≥6 mm confirmed by cone-beam computerized tomography (CBCT) was chosen for implant placement. Tapered hybrid implants that were sandblasted and acid-etched (HSA) were placed using the GIS protocol and immediately loaded with a provisional prosthesis. MBL and implant survival rates (ISR) were assessed based on standardized radiographs and clinical exams. Patients were followed up for 1-year post-loading. MBL after one year, in the control group, was −0.31 ± 0.11 mm (mesial) and −0.28 ± 0.09 mm (distal); and in the test group was −0.35 ± 0.11 mm (mesial) and −0.33 ± 0.13 mm (distal), with no statistical significance (p > 0.05). ISR was 100% in both groups after one year. ISR was similar between groups and the marginal bone changes were comparable one year after functional loading, without statistical significance, suggesting that bioactive glass permitted adequate bone formation. The GIS protocol avoided raising flaps and provided a better position to place implants, preserving the marginal bone around implants.

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the marginal fit and internal adaptation of provisional crowns and fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) fabricated using 3D-printing resins and compared them with those fabricated by CAD/CAM (computer-aided designing/computer-aided manufacturing) milling and conventional resins. The null hypotheses tested were that there would be no differences in the marginal fit and internal adaptation of 3D-printed provisional crowns and FDP resins when compared to CAD/CAM-milled and conventional provisional resins. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to construct this systematic review. The focused PICO/PECO (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparison, Outcome) question was “Do provisional crowns and FDPs (P) fabricated by 3D-printing (I) have similar marginal adaptation and internal fit (O) when compared to those fabricated by CAD/CAM milling and conventional techniques (C)?”. The protocol used for this systematic review was pre-registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science (Core Collection)) were systematically searched for indexed English literature published up to June 2022. In the initial electronic search of the selected databases, 519 articles were identified. Duplicates were removed, and screening was performed to select the articles that met the preset inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies were selected for qualitative analysis, but only ten of them provided comparative data and were selected for quantitative analysis. The modified CONSORT scale was used for qualitative analysis, and most of the included studies were rated to be of moderate quality. Based on the findings, it could be concluded that provisional crowns and FDPs fabricated from 3D-printing resins have a superior marginal fit and internal adaptation when compared to CAD/CAM-milled and conventional provisional resins; thus, they can be used as a dependable alternative to other resins.