Evaluation of Prosthetic Marginal Fit and Implant Survival Rates for Conventional and Digital Workflows in Full-Arch Immediate Loading Rehabilitations: A Retrospective Clinical Study

Angelis, Nicola De; Pesce, Paolo; Lorenzi, Marco De; Menini, María

doi:10.3390/jcm12103452

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of our investigation showed no significant differences between the digital and conventional workflows, reflecting the clinical reliability of digital procedures. This result is consistent with many authors who consider the digital workflow as a viable, faster, and more comfortable alternative to conventional procedures, keeping the same or improved accuracy, when performed by clinicians expert in the field [ 7 , 28 , 29 , 30 ]. Besides the technical aspects evaluated in this study, we decided to compare the time required for the digital and conventional impression procedures and the relative comfort perceived by the patient.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Corsalini,

Barile,

Ranieri

et al. 2024

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The progress of digital technologies in dental prosthodontics is fast and increasingly accurate, allowing practitioners to simplify their daily work. These technologies aim to substitute conventional techniques progressively, but their real efficiency and predictability are still under debate. Many systematic reviews emphasize the lack of clinical RCTs that compare digital and traditional workflow. To address this evidence, we conducted a three-arm designed clinical RCT, which compares fully digital, combined digital, and analogic and fully analog workflows. We aimed to compare the clinical properties of each workflow regarding interproximal (IC) and occlusal contact (OC), marginal fit, impression time (IT), and patient satisfaction through a VAS scale. In total, 72 patients were included in the study. The IC and OC of the digital workflow were better than the others (p < 0.001), which obtained similar results. No difference between implant–abutment fit was observed (p = 0.5966). The IT was shorter in the digital workflow than the others (p < 0.001), which were similar. Patient satisfaction was higher in the digital workflow than in the conventional one. Despite the limitations, this study’s results support better accuracy and patient tolerance of digital workflow than of conventional techniques, suggesting it as a viable alternative to the latter when performed by clinicians experienced in digital dentistry.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Corsalini,

Barile,

Ranieri

et al. 2024

JFB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Digital Dentistry and Its Impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

SCHIERZ,

HIRSCH,

KREY

et al. 2024

Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of Full-Arch Intraoral Scans Versus Conventional Impression: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis and a Proposal to Standardise the Analysis of the Accuracy

Pesce,

Nicolini,

Caponio

et al. 2024

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to systematically revise the state of art of the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in clinical full-arch scenarios. Methods: Electronic and manual searches were conducted up to December 2024. Only trials comparing the accuracy of digital versus conventional impressions were selected by two independent reviewers. Accuracy was evaluated by analysing the fit of the prostheses obtained through conventional workflows and those obtained from digital workflows using intraoral scanners. Alternatively, accuracy was assessed by comparing the standard tessellation language data acquired from intraoral scanning with those obtained from scanning the physical model. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool the mean differences from the included studies, with heterogeneity tested by Cochran’s Q test and quantified by the I2 index. Results: We included 9 relevant studies from a total of 2535 identified studies. The risk of bias was evaluated as low, and the main results of all the included articles reported similar accuracy between digital and conventional impressions. Random effects meta-analysis resulted in a pooled mean difference of 152.46 (95% C.I. = 76.46–228.46, p-value < 0.001, I2 = 93.48%). Conclusions: In conclusion, the results of the present systematic review reveal contradictory findings regarding the accuracy of digital impressions. However, most studies analysing the clinical performance of prostheses obtained through digital impressions suggest that their accuracy falls within clinically acceptable thresholds. Future research should report comparable outcomes and focus attention on linear deviations, comparing differences between conventional and digital impressions not in absolute terms, but relative to the distance measured.

show abstract

Evaluation of Prosthetic Marginal Fit and Implant Survival Rates for Conventional and Digital Workflows in Full-Arch Immediate Loading Rehabilitations: A Retrospective Clinical Study

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Digital Dentistry and Its Impact on Oral Health-Related Quality of Life

Accuracy of Full-Arch Intraoral Scans Versus Conventional Impression: A Systematic Review with a Meta-Analysis and a Proposal to Standardise the Analysis of the Accuracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About