Clinical efficiency and patient preference of digital and conventional workflow for single implant crowns using immediate and regular digital impression: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo assess whether digital workflow gives better results than the conventional one in the single implant crowns, when analyzing the impression time, patient preference, time efficiency, and adjustment time.Material and methodsMEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched and supplemented via hand search up to June 19, 2019. Only clinical trials assessing conventional versus digital workflows for single implant crowns were included. Impression time was evaluated using random effects meta‐analysis, while patient preference, adjustment time, and time efficiency were reported descriptively.ResultsAmong 1,334 publications identified, ten studies were included. The random effects models revealed statistically significant reduction in time in the digital impression group when compared to the conventional group by the mean meta‐analysis (MD: 8.22 [95% CI: 5.48, 10.96]). Analysis from immediate digital impression versus conventional (MD: 3.84 [95% CI: 3.30, 4.39]) and regular digital impression versus conventional (MD:10.67 [95% CI: 5.70, 15.65]) showed statistically significant reduction in time on using the digital impression. Impression time in the digital process ranged between 6 min 39 s and 20 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 11.7 and 28.47 min. Patients showed greater preference for digital impression. Adjustment time in the digital process ranged between 1.96 and 14 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 3.02 and 12 min. Time efficiency in the digital process ranged between 36.8 and 185.4 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 55.6 and 332 min.ConclusionThe digital workflow has demonstrated better clinical efficiency considering impression time, patient preference, and time efficiency. According to the adjustment time, different results were presented.

Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

“…To date, in fixed implant prosthodontics, the scientific literature has validated the use of IOSs for capturing optical impressions for the design and manufacture of short-span restorations such as single crowns (SCs) [ 7 – 10 ] and partial prostheses (PPs) [ 11 – 13 ]. However, in the case of long-span restorations, and in particular for full arches (FAs), IOSs do not yet seem to be sufficiently accurate, as reported by several studies [ 14 , 15 ] and reviews of the literature [ 16 , 17 ].…”

Clinical relevance of digital dentistry during COVID-19 outbreak

“…Digital workflow can also be used in cases of immediate implants. The advantages of immediately placed implants include reduced treatment time, fewer surgical procedures, better aesthetics and preservation of the alveolar bone in height and thickness 40 . Similarly, image-guided immediate implant surgery is performed less invasively, with less bleeding, often being a flapless surgery, and thus diminishing the dental cabinet potential contamination.…”

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

“…Finally, in a meta-analysis that included data extracted from 10 published studies (214 patients, 278 singleimplant crowns), de Oliveira et al 293 analyzed the efficiency and patient preference for digital versus conventional prosthodontic workflows for single-implantsupported crowns. Digital scans allowed for a reduction in mean clinical time (range, 6.39 to 20 minutes) compared with conventional impressions (range, 11.7-28.46 minutes), which may or may not be clinically significant.…”