Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Volumn 29, Issue , 2018, Pages 184-195

  Mühlemann, Sven ^a   Kraus, Riccardo D ^a   Hämmerle, Christoph H F ^a   Thoma, Daniel S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; HUMAN; IMPLANT-SUPPORTED DENTURE; PROCEDURES; PROSTHESIS DESIGN;

COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL PROSTHESIS DESIGN; DENTAL PROSTHESIS, IMPLANT-SUPPORTED; HUMANS;

EID: 85054776447     PISSN: 09057161     EISSN: 16000501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13300     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Abduo, J., Lyons, K., Bennani, V., Waddell, N., & Swain, M. (2011). Fit of screw-retained fixed implant frameworks fabricated by different methods: A systematic review. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 24, 207–220.
2. Baig, M. R. (2014). Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: A systematic review. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 29, 869–880. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3233
3. Benic, G. I., Muhlemann, S., Fehmer, V., Hammerle, C. H., & Sailer, I. (2016). Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I: Digital versus conventional unilateral impressions. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 116, 777–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.007
4. Christensen, G. J. (2009). Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. Journal of the American Dental Association, 140, 1301–1304. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054
5. Gherlone, E., Cappare, P., Vinci, R., Ferrini, F., Gastaldi, G., & Crespi, R. (2016). Conventional versus digital impressions for “all-on-four” restorations. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 31, 324–330. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3900
6. Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). London: The Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from http://handbook.cochrane.org.
7. Hinds, K. F. (1997). Custom impression coping for an exact registration of the healed tissue in the esthetic implant restoration. The International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, 17, 584–591.
8. Joda, T., & Brägger, U. (2014). Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 25, 1304–1306. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12270
9. Joda, T., & Brägger, U. (2015a). Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: A cost/time analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 26, 1430–1435. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12476
10. Joda, T., & Brägger, U. (2015b). Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: A prospective clinical crossover trial. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 30, 1047–1053. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3963
11. Joda, T., & Brägger, U. (2016). Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 27, 1401–1406. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12753
12. Joda, T., Ferrari, M., & Brägger, U. (2017). Monolithic implant-supported lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns in a complete digital workflow: A prospective clinical trial with a 2-year follow-up. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 19, 505–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12472
13. Joda, T., Katsoulis, J., & Brägger, U. (2016). Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 18, 946–954. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12377
14. Joda, T., Lenherr, P., Dedem, P., Kovaltschuk, I., Bragger, U., & Zitzmann, N. U. (2017). Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 28, 1318–1323. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12982
15. Kim, J. H., Kim, K. R., & Kim, S. (2015). Critical appraisal of implant impression accuracies: A systematic review. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 114, 185–192.e181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.005
16. Lee, S. J., & Gallucci, G. O. (2013). Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 24, 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x
17. Lee, H., So, J. S., Hochstedler, J. L., & Ercoli, C. (2008). The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 100, 285–291. https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5
18. Lee, C. Y., Wong, N., Ganz, S. D., Mursic, J., & Suzuki, J. B. (2015). Use of an intraoral laser scanner during the prosthetic phase of implant dentistry: A pilot study. The Journal of Oral Implantology, 41, e126–e132. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-13-00132
19. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., … Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, e1–e34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
20. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1006–1012. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
21. Mormann, W. H. (2006). The evolution of the CEREC system. Journal of the American Dental Association, 137(Suppl), 7S–13S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0398
22. Mormann, W. H., Brandestini, M., & Lutz, F. (1987). [The Cerec system: Computer-assisted preparation of direct ceramic inlays in 1 setting]. Quintessenz, 38, 457–470.
23. Palmqvist, S., Owall, B., & Schou, S. (2004). A prospective randomized clinical study comparing implant-supported fixed prostheses and overdentures in the edentulous mandible: Prosthodontic production time and costs. International Journal of Prosthodontics, 17, 231–235.
24. Papaspyridakos, P., Chen, C. J., Gallucci, G. O., Doukoudakis, A., Weber, H. P., & Chronopoulos, V. (2014). Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: A systematic review. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants, 29, 836–845. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3625
25. Park, S. W., Driscoll, C. F., Romberg, E. E., Siegel, S., & Thompson, G. (2006). Ceramic implant abutments: Cutting efficiency and resultant surface finish by diamond rotary cutting instruments. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 95, 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.04.001
26. Parpaiola, A., Sbricoli, L., Guazzo, R., Bressan, E., & Lops, D. (2013). Managing the peri-implant mucosa: A clinically reliable method for optimizing soft tissue contours and emergence profile. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 25, 317–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12046
27. Patzelt, S. B., Lamprinos, C., Stampf, S., & Att, W. (2014). The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: An in vitro comparative study. Journal of the American Dental Association, 145, 542–551. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.2014.23
28. Pozzi, A., Tallarico, M., Mangani, F., & Barlattani, A. (2013). Different implant impression techniques for edentulous patients treated with CAD/CAM complete-arch prostheses: A randomised controlled trial reporting data at 3 year post-loading. European Journal of Oral Implantology, 6, 325–340.
29. Sailer, I., Benic, G. I., Fehmer, V., Hammerle, C. H. F., & Muhlemann, S. (2017). Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part II: CAD-CAM versus conventional laboratory procedures. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 118, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.031
30. Schepke, U., Meijer, H. J., Kerdijk, W., & Cune, M. S. (2015). Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 114, 403–406.e401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
31. Shah, K., & Yilmaz, B. (2016). A technique to transfer the emergence profile contours of a provisional implant crown to the definitive impression. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 31, e15–e17. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4374
32. Spyropoulou, P. E., Razzoog, M., & Sierraalta, M. (2009). Restoring implants in the esthetic zone after sculpting and capturing the periimplant tissues in rest position: A clinical report. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 102, 345–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60189-X
33. Tsai, B. Y. (2011). A method for obtaining peri-implant soft-tissue contours by using screw-retained provisional restorations as impression copings: A clinical report. Journal of Oral Implantology, 37, 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00026.1
34. Vasconcellos, F., & Proussaefs, P. (2016). A technique for duplicating the contours of an interim implant supported crown to fabricate a custom impression coping and the definitive prosthesis. Implant Dentistry, 25, 861–865. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000495
35. Wismeijer, D., Mans, R., van Genuchten, M., & Reijers, H. A. (2014). Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 25, 1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12234