BackgroundThe continuous development in dental processing ensures new opportunities in the field of fixed prosthodontics in a complete virtual environment without any physical model situations. The aim was to compare fully digitalized workflows to conventional and/or mixed analog-digital workflows for the treatment with tooth-borne or implant-supported fixed reconstructions.MethodsA PICO strategy was executed using an electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar) plus manual search up to 2016–09-16 focusing on RCTs investigating complete digital workflows in fixed prosthodontics with regard to economics or esthetics or patient-centered outcomes with or without follow-up or survival/success rate analysis as well as complication assessment of at least 1 year under function. The search strategy was assembled from MeSH-Terms and unspecific free-text words: {((“Dental Prosthesis” [MeSH]) OR (“Crowns” [MeSH]) OR (“Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported” [MeSH])) OR ((crown) OR (fixed dental prosthesis) OR (fixed reconstruction) OR (dental bridge) OR (implant crown) OR (implant prosthesis) OR (implant restoration) OR (implant reconstruction))} AND {(“Computer-Aided Design” [MeSH]) OR ((digital workflow) OR (digital technology) OR (computerized dentistry) OR (intraoral scan) OR (digital impression) OR (scanbody) OR (virtual design) OR (digital design) OR (cad/cam) OR (rapid prototyping) OR (monolithic) OR (full-contour))} AND {(“Dental Technology” [MeSH) OR ((conventional workflow) OR (lost-wax-technique) OR (porcelain-fused-to-metal) OR (PFM) OR (implant impression) OR (hand-layering) OR (veneering) OR (framework))} AND {((“Study, Feasibility” [MeSH]) OR (“Survival” [MeSH]) OR (“Success” [MeSH]) OR (“Economics” [MeSH]) OR (“Costs, Cost Analysis” [MeSH]) OR (“Esthetics, Dental” [MeSH]) OR (“Patient Satisfaction” [MeSH])) OR ((feasibility) OR (efficiency) OR (patient-centered outcome))}.Assessment of risk of bias in selected studies was done at a ‘trial level’ including random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, completeness of outcome data, selective reporting, and other bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A judgment of risk of bias was assigned if one or more key domains had a high or unclear risk of bias. An official registration of the systematic review was not performed.ResultsThe systematic search identified 67 titles, 32 abstracts thereof were screened, and subsequently, three full-texts included for data extraction. Analysed RCTs were heterogeneous without follow-up. One study demonstrated that fully digitally produced dental crowns revealed the feasibility of the process itself; however, the marginal precision was lower for lithium disilicate (LS2) restorations (113.8 μm) compared to conventional metal-ceramic (92.4 μm) and zirconium dioxide (ZrO2) crowns (68.5 μm) (p < 0.05). Another study showed that leucite-reinforced glass ceramic crowns were esthetically favoured by the patients (8/2 crowns) and clinicians (7/3 crowns) (p < 0.05). The third study investigated implant crowns. The compl...

No abstract

Based on the findings of this investigation, both impression protocols worked successfully for all study participants capturing the 3D implant positions. However, the digital technique emerges as the most preferred one according to patient-centered outcomes and was more time-effective compared to conventional impressions.

The test workflow was more time-efficient than the controls for implant-supported crowns; notably, laboratory fabrication steps could be effectively shortened with the digital process of monolithic LS2 plus titanium base resulting in more than 30% reduced overall treatment costs.

A fixed dental prosthesis can be secured to an endosseous implant via cementation (using a provisional or definitive cement) on an implant abutment that is screw retained to the implant or directly in the implant via screw retention. The clinical decision as to which retention system best suits the individual patient depends on several factors. The aim of this review is to present a detailed overview of the factors potentially influencing whether to choose screw retention or cement retention. These factors include the individual indication, advantages and disadvantages of the different retention mechanisms, the retention provided, retrievability, provisionalization, esthetics and clinical performance, including failures and complications. The results of recently published systematic reviews on this topic are discussed and an overview is provided. A decision tree is presented to facilitate the clinical selection of the retention type. This overview concludes that the choice of retention type (screw retained or cement retained) might not influence the overall survival of the implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis, but may be responsible for the development of certain complications. The decision may depend on technical feasibility and on weighing the pros and cons.