Table 3 Detailed study information according to the type of reconstruction A1
From: The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review
No. | Study (year) | Number of subjects | Number of prosthetic units | Number of abutment teeth | Workflow and materials | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Batisse et al. (2014) | n = 8 | n = 20 [10 | 10] | n = 10 | A1. Tooth-borne crown [maxillary incisors] Complete digital workflow (model-free) [n = 10] Monolithic leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (IPS Empress CAD) IOS Cerec (Sirona) + lab-software (Sirona) > Crossover study group design with randomized treatment sequence < Mixed analog-digital workflow (stone cast) [n = 10] Gold-alloy coping + hand-layered ceramic veneering Conventional impression + lost-wax-technique | Digitally produced monolithic leucite-reinforced glass ceramic crowns were esthetical favoured by the patients (8/2 crowns) and the clinicians (7/3 crowns) (p < 0.05). No reported follow-up time. |
2. | Batson et al. (2014) | n = 20 | n = 32 [10 + 10 + 12] | n = 32 | A1. Tooth-borne crown [maxillary | mandible premolar + molar sites] Complete digital workflow (model-free) [n = 10] Monolithic LS2 (e.max CAD) IOS E4D (Planmeca E4D) + lab-software (3Shape) Mixed analog-digital workflow (CAD/CAM-model) [n = 10] Monolithic ZrO2 (Zenostar) IOS iTero (Aligntech) + lab-software (3Shape) Mixed analog-digital workflow (CAD/CAM-model) [n = 12] Gold-alloy coping + hand-layered ceramic veneering IOS iTero (Aligntech) + 1. printed coping >2. lost-wax-technique | Monolithic ZrO2 restorations (68.5 μm) showed the least amount of marginal discrepancy followed by metal-ceramic crowns (92.4 μm) and monolithic LS2 (113.8 μm) (p < 0.05). Average gingival crevicular fluid rates did not differ among the tested crown systems. No reported follow-up time. |