Objective: To assess and compare the accuracy of the marginal and internal fit of lithium disilicate crowns and onlays fabricated by conventional and digital methods. Sources: An electronic search was carried out on MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library between 2010 and 2021. Study selection: Seventeen studies published between 2014 & 2021 were included, of which thirteen were in vitro laboratory-based studies; three were in vivo clinical studies and one randomised controlled trial. Data: Twelve studies focused on the marginal fit, five focused on the marginal and internal fit. Five studies found that the marginal and internal fit of crowns were more accurate using digital techniques. Five studies noted that there was no difference using either technique and two noted that conventional methods had a more accurate marginal fit. Conclusion: Digital techniques were comparable to conventional methods in terms of accuracy although there was insufficient evidence to indicate that one technique was more accurate than the other with respect to Lithium Disilicate restorations. Clinical significance: Digital impressions are reliable and viable alternatives for clinicians compared to conventional impression techniques when restoring teeth with lithium disilicate restorations.

Feedback is essential to improve student learning and motivation and to encourage curriculum development by teachers. This study looked at feedback to and from dental students from a qualitative perspective. Methods: Dental teachers were recruited exclusively to this study from the membership of the Association for Dental Education in Europe (ADEE). Delegates from each of the four annual ADEE conferences were invited to attend focus groups to discuss aspects of feedback. Focus groups established an individual theme for the respective conferences: (i) the role of the teacher in delivering feedback; (ii) feedback from the students’ perspective; (iii) changes to feedback due to the COVID-19 pandemic; and (iv) integrating feedback with assessments. Results: Qualitative data collected from the conference delegates were diverse and thought provoking. Delegates reported different styles of feedback varying from individual, personal feedback to no feedback at all. An enforced and mostly positive adaptation to online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic was reported. A partial return to pre-pandemic practices was described. Conclusions: Feedback is well recognized by students and teachers as contributing to learning. A universal approach to delivering feedback as part of the student learning process can be challenging due to a multitude of variables. Many aspects of changes in dental education, teaching, and feedback practices adopted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic have been retained post-pandemic, thereby accelerating the anticipated progression to online teaching.