Search

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 I 2 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, I 2 = 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.

Digital impression provides several advantages in implant prosthodontics; however, its use in full-arch rehabilitations, especially immediately after surgery, has yet to be validated. The aim of this study was to retrospectively analyse the fit of immediate full-arch prostheses, fabricated using conventional or digital impressions. Patients requiring a full-arch immediate loading rehabilitation were divided into three groups: T1 (digital impression taken immediately after surgery), T2 (Preoperative digital impression, guided surgery-prefabricated temporary bridge) and C (conventional impression taken immediately after surgery). Immediate temporary prostheses were delivered within 24 h after surgery. X-rays were obtained at the time of prosthesis delivery and at the 2-year follow-up. Primary outcomes were cumulative survival rate (CSR) and prosthesis fit. Secondary outcomes were marginal bone level (MBL) and patient satisfaction. One hundred and fifty patients were treated from 2018 to 2020, with 50 in each group. Seven implants failed during the observation period. The CSR was 99% for T1, 98% for T2 and 99.5% for C. A statistically significant difference in prosthesis fit was found among T1 and T2 vs. C. A statistically significant difference was found in the MBL between T1 and C. The outcomes of the present study suggest that digital impression is a viable alternative to conventional protocols for the realisation of full-arch immediate loading prostheses.

Background: Dental implants are widely used and in order to answer to esthetic demands, zirconia has been introduced as an abutment material as an alternative to titanium. Several studies have been published on this topic, but the results have been often inconsistent. The objective of the present study is to systematically analyze the existing literature comparing clinical outcomes of titanium and zirconia implant abutments. The study was designed as a systematic review of systematic reviews. Methods: This systematic review is in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. A MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS literature search was performed up to and including June 2021. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and tAMSTAR2 was used to assess the quality of the systematic reviews. Results: The electronic search identified 1146 papers, and 175 duplicates were removed. After manual screening, 954 studies were excluded and the final analysis was conducted on 11 papers. Both mechanical and esthetic outcomes and biological complications were analyzed. Conclusions: It can be concluded that titanium abutments have a better mechanical resistance than zirconia ones. Plaque accumulation is reported to be slightly higher on titanium but without any significant inflammatory process. The esthetic outcomes seem to be more related to the thickness (>3 mm) of the soft tissues than to the abutment material.

(1) Background. Dental implant placement in the anterior region requires extreme precision due to relatively high aesthetic demand. This narrative review aimed to analyse some of the available clinical studies of the socket-shield technique and determine its viability for dental implant survival/success and complication rates. (2) Methods. An electronic search for publications was performed using the Cochrane, PubMed-MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. All electronic searches included human clinical and animal studies and were performed by three independent examiners. (3) Results. A total of 1383 records were identified with the initial search strategies, but only 25 full texts + five abstracts clinical studies were kept after the recruitment criteria screening. The technical details, advantages, and limitations of the techniques were illustrated. (4) Conclusion. Within the limitations of the present review, it would be merely justified that immediate dental implant placement in conjunction with the socket-shield technique can be a promising strategy for dental implant therapy.

This study aimed to compare a flapless surgical approach (FSA) with a traditional envelope flap (traditional approach (TA)). Every patient was treated with two approaches: TA and FSA. The primary outcome variables were both the discomfort during the post-operative convalescence and the correct final recovery of the impacted area. The secondary outcome variable was the average duration of the surgery. Post-operative pain and oedema were recorded. The measurements of soft tissue interface toward the distobuccal edge of the second molar were taken by periodontal probe before surgery (baseline) and 8 weeks after surgery. Statistical software was used to evaluate the data; a p -value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Twenty-four teeth of 12 patients (six Caucasian males and six Caucasian females, aged 23 ± 4 (17-30) years) with both lower impacted third molars (Ms3) were analysed. Considering an alpha error 0.05 that sample size allows power from 0.80 to 0.90, depending on the variable evaluated. Concerning attached gingiva, oedema and pain, the linear mixed model resulted in a statistically significant difference between the TA and FSA ( p = 0.003; p < 0.01; and p = 0.018, respectively). Conversely, the model did not show a difference ( p = 0.322) if pocket probing depth was considered. The FSA procedure was faster ( p < 0.05) than the TA procedure (17 min and 8 s (±6 s) vs. 28 min and 6 s (±4 s), respectively). The results suggest that the FSA could be a suitable option for improving the surgical removal of lower Ms3. However, additional randomized controlled trial studies are necessary to confirm the reliability of our procedure and to verify its suitability in more complex Ms3 classifications.