Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Multi-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: An Empty Review
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to do a comprehensive systematic review on the comparison of digital and conventional workflows regarding prosthetic outcomes, accuracy of implant impressions, framework passivity and fit, and clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations.
Materials and Methods: The EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up until April 2020.
Results: No in-vivo article was found to compare full digital and conventional workflows regarding the accuracy of implant impressions, passivity and fit of frameworks, and prosthetic outcomes. There was no study to investigate full digital and conventional workflows for clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations.
Conclusion: This empty review highlights the need for further research to compare full digital and conventional workflows for implant-supported restorations.
1. Berrendero S, Salido M, Valverde A, Ferre-iroa A, Pradies G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Dec;20:2403-10.
2. Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015 Feb;43:201-8.
3. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Gemin-iani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Aug;116:184-190.e12.
4. Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G.
Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Sep;116:328-335.e2.
5. Miwa A, Kori H, Tsukiyama Y, Kuwatsuru R, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Fit of e. max crowns fabricated using conventional and CAD/CAM technology: a comparative study. Int J Prosthodont. 2016 Nov;29:602-7.
6. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in-vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont. 2017 Oct;26:581-6.
7. Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Aug;112:155-62.
8. Vennerstrom M, Fakhary M, Von Steyern PV. The fit of crowns produced using digital impression systems. Swed Dent J 2014 Jan;38:101-10.
9. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Aug;15:466-73.
10. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Aust Dent J. 2011 Jun;56:97-106.
11. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in-vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jul;118:36-42.
12. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:1-9.
13. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Sep;17:1759-64.
14. Zeltner M, Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Özcan M, Hämmerle CH, Benic GI. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Mar 1;117(3):354-62.
15. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. J Prosth Dent. 2015 Sep;114(3):403-6.
16. Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Sep;17(1):124.
17. Abdel-Azim T, Zandinejad A, Elathamna E, Lin W, Morton D. The influence of digital fabrication options on the accuracy of dental implant-based single units and complete-arch frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Dec;29(6):1281-8.
18. Al Quran FA, Rashdan BA, Zomar AA, Weiner S. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques. Quintessence Int. 2012 Feb;43(2):119-25.
19. Al-Fadda SA, Zarb GA, Finer Y. A comp-arison of the accuracy of fit of 2 methods for fabricating implant-prosthodontic frameworks. Int J Prosthodont. 2007 Mar;20(2):125-31.
20. Drago C, Saldarriaga RL, Domagala D, Almasri R. Volumetric determination of the amount of misfit in CAD/CAM and cast implant frameworks: a multicenter laboratory study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Oct;25(5):920-9.
21. Karl M, Graef F, Schubinski P, Taylor T. Effect
of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Quintessence Int. 2012 Jul;43(7):555-62.
22. Karl M1, Wichmann MG, Heckmann SM, Krafft T. Strain development in 3-unit implant-supported CAD/CAM restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Aug;23(4):648-52.
23. Mello C, Santiago Junior F, Lemos C, Galhano G, Evangelisti E, Scotti R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy and stress distribution of 3-unit implant supported prostheses obtained by different manufacturing methods. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Sep;102:66-74.
24. Pesce P, Pera F, Setti P, Menini M. Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Mar;31(2):171-5.
25. Tahmaseb A, van de Weijden JJ, Mercelis P, De Clerck R, Wismeijer D. Parameters of passive fit using a new technique to mill implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study of a novel three-dimensional force measurement-misfit method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Mar;25:247-57.
26. Aktas G, Özcan N, Aydin DH, Şahin E, Akça K. Effect of digitizing techniques on the fit of implant-retained crowns with different antirotational abutment features. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(5):367-72.
27. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: A comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Nov;31(6):577-9.
28. Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Dec;26(12):1430-5.
29. Joda T, Brägger U. Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: A prospective clinical crossover trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Sep;30(5):1047-53.
30. Rattanapanich P, Aunmeungtong W, Chaijareenont P, Khongkhunthian P. Comparative study between an immediate loading protocol using the digital workflow and a conventional protocol for dental implant treatment: A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Med. 2019 May;8(5):622-34.
31. Benic GI, Sailer I, Zeltner M, Gütermann JN, Özcan M, Mühlemann S. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part III: Marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Mar;121(3):426-31.
32. Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Mar;7;16(5):829.
33. Ferrini F, Capparé P, Vinci R, Gherlone EF, Sannino G. Digital versus traditional workflow for posterior maxillary rehabilitations supported by one straight and one tilted implant: A 3-year prospective comparative study. Biomed Res Int. 2018 Nov;2018:4149107.
34. Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional versus digital impressions for “all-on-four” restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Mar;31(2):324-30.
35. Jemt T, Bäck T, Petersson A. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study. Int J Prosthodont. 1999 Jul;12(4):363-8.
36. Jiang X, Lin Y, Cui HY, Di P. Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: A pilot clinical study with 1-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Jun;21(3):446-53.
37. Fasbinder DJ. Digital dentistry: innovation for restorative treatment. Comp Cont Educ Dent. 2010 Oct;31:2-11.
38. Weston J. Closing the gap between esthetics and digital dentistry. Comp Cont Educ Dent. 2016 Feb;37(2):84-91.
39. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):422-8.
40. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan;17:54-64.
41. Schlosser R, Sigafoos J. Empty reviews and evidence-based practice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 2009;3(1):1-3.
42. Lang A, Edwards N and Fleiszer A. Empty systematic reviews: Hidden perils and lessons learned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;60(6):595-7.
43. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8.
44. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep;20:1495-504.
45. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015 Jan;46(1):9-17.
46. Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jun;115(6):755-9.
47. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am. J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Sep;144(3):471-8.
48. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Mar;115(3):313-20.
49. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018 Aug;26(3):101-21.
50. Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard LD. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One. 2012 May;7(5):e36626.
51. Green S, Higgins JP, Schunemann, HJ, Becker L. Response to paper by Lang A, Edwards N, and Fleiszer A. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;60(6):598-9.
2. Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015 Feb;43:201-8.
3. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Gemin-iani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Aug;116:184-190.e12.
4. Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G.
Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Sep;116:328-335.e2.
5. Miwa A, Kori H, Tsukiyama Y, Kuwatsuru R, Matsushita Y, Koyano K. Fit of e. max crowns fabricated using conventional and CAD/CAM technology: a comparative study. Int J Prosthodont. 2016 Nov;29:602-7.
6. Shembesh M, Ali A, Finkelman M, Weber HP, Zandparsa R. An in-vitro comparison of the marginal adaptation accuracy of CAD/CAM restorations using different impression systems. J Prosthodont. 2017 Oct;26:581-6.
7. Euán R, Figueras-Álvarez O, Cabratosa-Termes J, Oliver-Parra R. Marginal adaptation of zirconium dioxide copings: influence of the CAD/CAM system and the finish line design. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Aug;112:155-62.
8. Vennerstrom M, Fakhary M, Von Steyern PV. The fit of crowns produced using digital impression systems. Swed Dent J 2014 Jan;38:101-10.
9. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Aug;15:466-73.
10. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Aust Dent J. 2011 Jun;56:97-106.
11. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in-vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jul;118:36-42.
12. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, et al. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017;2017:1-9.
13. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Sep;17:1759-64.
14. Zeltner M, Sailer I, Mühlemann S, Özcan M, Hämmerle CH, Benic GI. Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part III: marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Mar 1;117(3):354-62.
15. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. J Prosth Dent. 2015 Sep;114(3):403-6.
16. Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Sep;17(1):124.
17. Abdel-Azim T, Zandinejad A, Elathamna E, Lin W, Morton D. The influence of digital fabrication options on the accuracy of dental implant-based single units and complete-arch frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Dec;29(6):1281-8.
18. Al Quran FA, Rashdan BA, Zomar AA, Weiner S. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques. Quintessence Int. 2012 Feb;43(2):119-25.
19. Al-Fadda SA, Zarb GA, Finer Y. A comp-arison of the accuracy of fit of 2 methods for fabricating implant-prosthodontic frameworks. Int J Prosthodont. 2007 Mar;20(2):125-31.
20. Drago C, Saldarriaga RL, Domagala D, Almasri R. Volumetric determination of the amount of misfit in CAD/CAM and cast implant frameworks: a multicenter laboratory study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Oct;25(5):920-9.
21. Karl M, Graef F, Schubinski P, Taylor T. Effect
of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Quintessence Int. 2012 Jul;43(7):555-62.
22. Karl M1, Wichmann MG, Heckmann SM, Krafft T. Strain development in 3-unit implant-supported CAD/CAM restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008 Aug;23(4):648-52.
23. Mello C, Santiago Junior F, Lemos C, Galhano G, Evangelisti E, Scotti R, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy and stress distribution of 3-unit implant supported prostheses obtained by different manufacturing methods. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Sep;102:66-74.
24. Pesce P, Pera F, Setti P, Menini M. Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Mar;31(2):171-5.
25. Tahmaseb A, van de Weijden JJ, Mercelis P, De Clerck R, Wismeijer D. Parameters of passive fit using a new technique to mill implant-supported superstructures: an in vitro study of a novel three-dimensional force measurement-misfit method. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Mar;25:247-57.
26. Aktas G, Özcan N, Aydin DH, Şahin E, Akça K. Effect of digitizing techniques on the fit of implant-retained crowns with different antirotational abutment features. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(5):367-72.
27. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: A comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Nov;31(6):577-9.
28. Joda T, Brägger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Dec;26(12):1430-5.
29. Joda T, Brägger U. Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: A prospective clinical crossover trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Sep;30(5):1047-53.
30. Rattanapanich P, Aunmeungtong W, Chaijareenont P, Khongkhunthian P. Comparative study between an immediate loading protocol using the digital workflow and a conventional protocol for dental implant treatment: A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Med. 2019 May;8(5):622-34.
31. Benic GI, Sailer I, Zeltner M, Gütermann JN, Özcan M, Mühlemann S. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part III: Marginal and internal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Mar;121(3):426-31.
32. Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Mar;7;16(5):829.
33. Ferrini F, Capparé P, Vinci R, Gherlone EF, Sannino G. Digital versus traditional workflow for posterior maxillary rehabilitations supported by one straight and one tilted implant: A 3-year prospective comparative study. Biomed Res Int. 2018 Nov;2018:4149107.
34. Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional versus digital impressions for “all-on-four” restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 Mar;31(2):324-30.
35. Jemt T, Bäck T, Petersson A. Photogrammetry--an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study. Int J Prosthodont. 1999 Jul;12(4):363-8.
36. Jiang X, Lin Y, Cui HY, Di P. Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: A pilot clinical study with 1-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Jun;21(3):446-53.
37. Fasbinder DJ. Digital dentistry: innovation for restorative treatment. Comp Cont Educ Dent. 2010 Oct;31:2-11.
38. Weston J. Closing the gap between esthetics and digital dentistry. Comp Cont Educ Dent. 2016 Feb;37(2):84-91.
39. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: A systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):422-8.
40. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan;17:54-64.
41. Schlosser R, Sigafoos J. Empty reviews and evidence-based practice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention. 2009;3(1):1-3.
42. Lang A, Edwards N and Fleiszer A. Empty systematic reviews: Hidden perils and lessons learned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;60(6):595-7.
43. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013 Feb;109(2):121-8.
44. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep;20:1495-504.
45. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015 Jan;46(1):9-17.
46. Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Accuracy of complete arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Jun;115(6):755-9.
47. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am. J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Sep;144(3):471-8.
48. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Mar;115(3):313-20.
49. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review of Influencing Factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018 Aug;26(3):101-21.
50. Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard LD. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One. 2012 May;7(5):e36626.
51. Green S, Higgins JP, Schunemann, HJ, Becker L. Response to paper by Lang A, Edwards N, and Fleiszer A. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jun;60(6):598-9.
| Issue | Vol 21 (Continuously Published Article-Based) | |
| Section | Review Article | |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v21i20.15714 | |
| Keywords | ||
| Dental Prosthesis mplant-Supported Computer-Aided Design Review | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Mahmoud Hashemi A, Hasanzadeh M, Khraisat A, Alikhasi M. Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Multi-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: An Empty Review. Front Dent. 2024;21.
