Skip to main content

The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced through a direct digital workflow were reported.

Methods

A MEDLINE (Pubmed) search of the relevant English-language literature spanning from January 1st 2015 until March 31st 2020 was conducted. In vitro studies comparing digital implant impression accuracy by different IOS devices or in vitro studies examining differences in accuracy between digital and conventional impression procedures were included. Also, RCTs, clinical trials and case series on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, manufactured completely digitally were included. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting on restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow, case reports and non-English language articles were excluded. The aim was to investigate the accuracy of IOS for single and multiple fixed implant restorations compared to the conventional impression methods and report on the variables that influence it. Finally, this study aimed to report on the survival and success of fixed implant-retained restorations fabricated using the direct digital workflow.

Results

For the single and short-span implant sites, IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression was identified. Moreover, complete-arch IOS impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. Factors related to scanbody design as well as scanner generation, scanning range and interimplant distance were found to influence complete-arch scanning accuracy. Single implant-retained monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates and minor complications for short to medium follow-up periods.

Conclusions

The vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Nevertheless, intraoral scanning exhibited high accuracy both for single and multiple implant restorations. Available literature on single-implant monolithic restorations manufactured through a complete digital workflow shows promising results for a follow-up of 3–5 years.

Peer Review reports

Background

The origins of intraoral scanning technology (IOS) can be traced back in the early 1970’s when Dr Francoise Duret and coworkers pioneered the first dental intraoral digitizer to obtain an optical impression [1] for an indirect restoration. It would take approximately another 2 decades to introduce digital IOS in mainstream clinical dentistry [2]. Since then, the range of IOS applications has expanded from single tooth or implant-supported restorations [3,4,5] to fixed dental prostheses [6], occlusal devices [7], removable partial dental prostheses [8, 9] or complete dentures [10,11,12] and maxillofacial prostheses [13, 14]. Nevertheless, a consensus regarding the implementation of IOS in complete-arch edentulous patients rehabilitated with multiple dental implants has not yet, been established [15]. This approach would necessitate the use of a completely digital implant workflow from the planning stage to final fit. This workflow begins with intraoral direct digitization of the soft tissues and the implants’ position and it continues with the laboratory steps of computer assisted design (CAD) and computer assisted manufacturing (CAM). The final prosthesis is then manufactured in a monolithic design from zirconia, lithium disilicate or hybrid ceramic materials [2]. For restorations in the esthetic zone, minimal porcelain layering of the framework material can also be employed to overcome esthetic limitations related to the physical characteristics of zirconia.

The implementation of the direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics is not without difficulties. Two main contributing reasons to this are identified in the literature, one being the variations in partial and complete-arch digital scanning accuracy of different IOS devices [16] and also the lack of long-term data on the success and survival of monolithic single, partial and complete-arch fixed prostheses [17]. Joda et al. [18] in a systematic review reported that the number of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on the subject of complete digital workflow is low and recommendations for clinical routine cannot be made.

Newer IOS hardware and software versions are constantly being introduced by the manufacturers that claim improved scanning accuracy, improved user interface and better patient experience. In addition, new monolithic materials with improved mechanical and physical properties are introduced to the dental market claiming better aesthetics and higher long-term success and survival [2, 19].

The aim of this narrative review was to present an overview on the current evidence regarding the implementation of the direct digital workflow in partial and complete-arch edentulous patients rehabilitated with implant-supported prostheses. Moreover, this review attempted to compare IOS accuracy to conventional implant impression procedures, identify the main clinical factors that influence IOS accuracy and report on the success and survival of the monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced with this particular clinical workflow.

Methods

Search strategy

An electronic search of publications from January 1st 2015 to March 31st 2020 was conducted. The cut-off point (2015) was selected because the rate of advancement in scanner hardware and software [20] and dental CAD/CAM material science [19] has accelerated in the past 5 years. The search strategy used a combination of free-text words. A MEDLINE (PubMed) search was performed and the search terms together with the number of records returned are shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Free text terms used in the search strategy

This review included randomized control clinical trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective clinical trials, case series and in vitro studies focusing on intraoral digital implant impression accuracy. In vitro and in vivo studies comparing different IOS devices in terms of scanning efficiency were included. Studies comparing intraoral digitization to conventional implant impressions in terms of accuracy were also included. Reports on the accuracy of fit as well as on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, produced through an IOS impression procedure were also identified and included in this review. In vitro and in vivo studies looking into the fit accuracy of restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow (laboratory scanning) were excluded. Case reports were also excluded. The search included only English-language articles. To further identify any missed articles, the reference lists of the included papers were screened.

The following questions were formulated and addressed in this review:

  1. (a)

    What is the IOS accuracy in single implant sites.

  2. (b)

    How does IOS accuracy compare to conventional impression accuracy in short-span and completely edentulous implant sites.

  3. (c)

    What are the factors influencing IOS’s accuracy.

  4. (d)

    What is the survival and success rate of monolithic implant-supported restorations manufactured using the direct digital workflow.

Results

Initial search identified 483 references. After application of the exclusion criteria, 72 references were eligible to be included in this review. Data from these studies regarding the type of IOS used, type of conventional impression used, impression accuracy in μm, type of study, reference scanner used were extracted and are presented in Tables 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Table 2 IOS accuracy compared to conventional techniques
Table 3 IOS accuracy compared to conventional techniques
Table 4 IOS accuracy compared to conventional techniques
Table 5 Studies on accuracy of 3D printed models with multiple implants
Table 6 Studies on single-implant retained monolithic restorations (complete digital workflow). (N/A = not applicable, Tr = trueness, Pr = precision)
Table 7 Studies on multiple-implant retained monolithic restorations (complete digital workflow)

IOS accuracy in single implant sites

Several in vitro studies were identified examining the scanning accuracy of IOS in single-implant edentulous sites (Table 2). IOS scan accuracy has been studied in conjunction with the digital manufacturing of the master model through rapid prototyping techniques. This approach necessitates the milling or 3D-printing of the master model from the IOS scan in order for the restoration to be completed in a semi-digital approach usually employing a porcelain layering step. Alternatively, a complete digital workflow utilizing a monolithic restoration and without necessitating the fabrication of a physical model can be used. Evidence suggests, however, that neither of these approaches is without discrepancies and that the final implant position in the virtual or the physical master model is statistically significantly different compared to the analogue position in the cast model, produced from a conventional impression [21,22,23]. Mangano et al. [23] in a comparative study reported discrepancies in the virtual position of a single implant ranging from 15 ± 0.8 to 43 ± 11 μm depending on the scanner tested. Deviations of 7–37 μm in the final vertical position of the single virtual implant were also reported in another in vitro study by Chew et al. [24] and correlated to the implant platform placement depth and the scanner used. In another in vitro study by Chia et al. [25] a 15 N/cm torque, applied during tightening of the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant scanbody, was shown to alter the position of the implant as much as 11 (± 4.9) μm in an apical direction due to compression of the scanbody material. The surface matching discrepancies between the scanbody and the implant platform, have also been shown to amount to 9–11 μm [26, 27], further contributing to digital impression total inaccuracies.

Additional implant positional discrepancy can be expected when a physical master model is digitally produced. Revilla-Leon et al. [28] in an in vitro study reported that the design of scanbodies significantly affected the positional accuracy of the implant analogues inside the 3D-printed cast. Mühlemann et al. [22] in an in vivo study reported that the conventional impression and gypsum production procedure exhibited higher positional accuracy (32 ± 11 μm) of the implant analogue compared to IOS and digital model production (57 ± 32–176 ± 120 μm), regardless of the scanner and the rapid prototyping process used for fabrication of the plastic model. The fact that this was an in vivo study and that measurements were made on printed/milled models may have contributed to the un-favorable IOS accuracy results along with operator calibration. Furthermore, Lee et al. [29] attributed the implant positional discrepancy to the inaccuracy of friction-fit placement of the digital implant analogue inside the plastic model. All of the aforementioned factors can lead to the final implant crown being over- or infra-occluded therefore requiring major chairside adjustments [30] or even additional laboratory procedures.

IOS accuracy compared to conventional impression accuracy in short-span implant edentulous sites

Regarding implant-rehabilitated short-span edentulous sites, several studies have compared the IOS accuracy of various scanner devices to the conventional impression accuracy (Table 3). Digital implant impression for short span prostheses, supported by up to 2–4 implants located within the same quadrant, has been mainly compared for in vitro accuracy to an elastomeric impression technique, utilizing either addition-cure silicone materials in a single or dual mix technique, or a polyether mono-phase technique using custom trays [21, 24, 25, 31]. Implant impression posts, in the conventional impression approach, were usually not splinted. Statistical superiority of the conventional method was reported in the majority of studies but the accuracy deviation of the IOS devices ranged from 27 to 66 μm depending on the scanner, whereas for the conventional method the deviation ranged from 26 to 49 μm [24, 25, 31]. To what extend this statistical significance translates into clinical significance is not known. In the study by Basaki et al. [21], the IOS deviation was reported to be 116 (± 94) μm as compared to 56 (± 29) μm for the conventional impression procedure but the calculation was performed on the polyurethane milled casts that were produced from the digital impressions. Therefore, additional deviations in the milling process may have aggravated this discrepancy. In a recent in vivo study by Alsharbaty et al. [32] the authors reported statistically significant differences in accuracy between the conventional and the digital impression of partially edentulous sites with 2 adjacent implants, although clinical significance could not be concluded according to the authors.

IOS accuracy compared to conventional impression accuracy in completely edentulous arches with multiple implants

Complete-arch IOS accuracy of multiple implant impressions has been studied intensively in the past 5 years. The conventional method, utilizing elastomeric impression materials and multiple implant impression post splinting, has been the gold standard against which the accuracy of various scanners was tested (Table 4). Current evidence on the superiority of one technique over the other is inconclusive. There is available research postulating that IOS of complete edentulous arches with 5 or 6 implants is either equally or statistically significantly more accurate than conventional elastomeric impressions taken using impression post splinting and an open custom tray approach [33,34,35].This finding is independent of the scanner used, as different IOS technologies such as confocal microscopy and active triangulation have been tested in the aforementioned studies. Impression material type is also non-contributory, as both polyether (PE) and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) high accuracy elastomeric materials were used. In contrast, there is also available evidence supporting the significant statistical superior accuracy of the splinted, open-tray, conventional elastomeric impression technique over the IOS impression for complete-arch implant rehabilitation [36,37,38]. Again, this finding was irrespective of IOS device and impression material used. This lack of consensus can be attributed to factors such as the study design, the different IOS device software and hardware used or the statistical analysis employed but it is unclear whether statistical significance translates into clinical significance.

There appears to be scientific evidence in the available literature, however, regarding the superiority of the digital intraoral scanning method in relation to the conventional, non-splinted elastomeric impression technique using either an open or a closed custom tray for complete-arch impressions [39, 40]. In a study by Rech-Ortega et al. [40], the authors stated that despite the higher accuracy of the digital scanning method, both techniques exhibited a deterioration when more than 4 implants were involved in the scanning scope. Alikhasi et al. [39] reported that the digital impression technique was statistically more accurate than both the direct (open tray) and the indirect (closed tray) conventional elastomeric impression method.

Besides the conventional and the complete digital workflow for edentulous arches with multiple implants, there is always the option of producing a 3D-printed or milled cast from the IOS impression and using this as the master model. Research on the accuracy of such models produced using rapid prototyping techniques is scarce (Table 5). Papaspyridakos et al. [41] in an in vitro study on the accuracy of 4 implant analogue positions in SLA (Stereolithography) casts produced through IOS scans, concluded that the mean deviation of the printed casts was 59 (± 16) μm. The implant analogue 3d deviations were statistically significantly different from the master model, but still within a clinically acceptable range according to the authors [41]. In another in vitro study, Revilla-Leon et al. [42] tested several 3D-printing technologies for the production of a completely edentulous maxillary cast with 7 implants. The authors reported that not all production methods led to results comparable to the conventional gypsum master model in terms of accuracy. Digital light processing (DLP) and Polyjet 3D printing technologies with specific 3D printers showed comparable accuracy to the stone model. Implant analogue deviations ranged from 21 (± 16) μm (Polyjet) to 27 (± 20) μm (DLP).

Factors influencing IOS accuracy in fixed implant-supported restorations

Several in vitro studies have been conducted comparing different scanner devices regarding both partial [43,44,45,46,47] and complete-arch [23, 44, 48,49,50,51,52,53,54] accuracy. Digital scans from the various IOS devices were compared for trueness and precision against the scans from a highly accurate reference laboratory scanner. Evidence suggests that scanner type and generation can influence scanning accuracy as some scanner devices exhibited higher precision (low standard deviation) and higher complete-arch scanning accuracy compared to others. Nevertheless, the majority of newer generation scanners produce complete-arch accuracy values less than the maximum 150 μm threshold, currently accepted in clinical practice [45, 55,56,57,58].

Several clinical factors contributing to the global deviations in complete-arch intraoral scanning have been identified and studied in the literature. Operator experience is one clinical parameter that has been reported to influence scanning accuracy in a study utilizing an Active Wavefront Sampling (AWS) technology scanner (Lava COS) [59] but more recent studies with newer generation scanners using both AWS and Confocal Microscopy technology failed to verify this finding, or identify the clinically relevant level of operator experience [48, 60, 61].

Implant angulation is another clinical factor that has been extensively studied for its effect on both partial and complete-arch implant digital impression accuracy. In the vast majority of studies, where single-part all-PEEK scanbodies were used as scanning posts for both partial [21, 24, 25] and complete-arch [33, 39, 48, 59, 62, 63] digital impressions, scanbody angulation did not affect scan accuracy. In the contrary, in a study by Arcuri et al. [61], the authors reported that complete-arch scan accuracy was, indeed, influenced by scanbody angulation. This finding may be attributed to the material of the scanbodies themselves. The PEEK-titanium scanbodies that were used in the study, presented the worst overall accuracy results compared to the all-PEEK and the titanium scanbodies they were compared against, possibly due to the interlocking between the two parts. In another in vitro study by Lin et al. [64], accuracy of the 2 implant analogues position in partial, milled polyurethane casts fabricated digitally following IOS, was found to be influenced by minor implant angulation (0–15 degrees) but not by major implant angulation (30–45 degrees). The authors reported that it is unclear whether the design of the two-piece scanbodies used in the study attributed to this result.

Further-on, regarding the design characteristics of scanbodies, their influence in scan accuracy has been tested in both partial and complete-arch digital implant impressions. The refractory and reflective indexes of all-PEEK scanbodies have been reported to be beneficial for complete-arch scan accuracy [44, 61]. Additionally, implant placement depth has not been reported to play a detrimental role in complete-arch IOS accuracy [48, 59] assuming the visible part of the scanbody can provide adequate reference points for IOS registration [62]. Therefore, using scanbodies of adequate length for optimum scan accuracy is indicated [57]. Cylindrical scanbodies with smoother surfaces have also been reported to facilitate IOS digitization by producing less noise as opposed to scanbodies with irregular shape [65,66,67]. Recent research has also highlighted the importance of certain features related to scanbody manufacturing tolerances and their effect on the accuracy of the digital IOS impression. Schmidt et al. [68] have reported significant differences in design characteristics such as length and diameter between implant scanbodies of the same manufacturer. These tolerances may affect the accurate transfer of implant position and therefore contribute to the final prosthetic misfit. In addition, Mangano et al. [69] have reported on the congruence between the IOS mesh file and the CAD library file of scanbodies when scanned with different IOS devices. Certain scanners seem to digitize the shape of the scanbody more closely to the actual CAD library file compared to others. Finally, implant scanbody reusability is another important parameter that needs to be consider. Limited evidence regarding all-PEEK scanbodies suggest that using them up to ten consecutive times does not impact on transfer accuracy [70].

Lighting conditions during a scanning session have recently been reported to influence global scanning accuracy. Research has shown that each IOS device scans more accurately in specific lighting conditions [71, 72] that correlate to its inherent image acquisition technology. Regardless of this technology however, precise superimposition or stitching of successive images is imperative for accurate scan results. This process is known to produce dimensional discrepancies that are directly related to both the scanning scope and the interimplant distance. Its effect is multiplied in complete-arch edentulous jaws with limited reference points and landmarks among multiple implants as well as in the mandibular posterior area where scanner tip access is compromised due to tongue movement and limited space [73, 74]. Studies on partial-arch digital scan accuracy have shown that when the range of scan and interimplant distance increased, the scanning accuracy decreased [43, 45, 46, 54]. Moreover, increasing scanning range and interimplant distance have also been reported to influence complete-arch scan trueness and precision [35, 40, 50, 60, 62, 75], although the minimum number of installed implants for an accurate digital impression has not yet been investigated. The main issue with multiple implant scanning in fully edentulous arches remains the difficulty in predictable scanning of the soft tissue between the fixtures themselves. Mizumoto et al. [75] in a recent in vitro study have reported that in the completely edentulous maxilla with 4 installed implants, including scanning data from the palate did not result in statistically significant higher accuracy. In an effort to minimize discrepancies when scanning edentulous sites among multiple implants, Iturrate et al. [76, 77] have investigated the in vitro effectiveness of using an auxiliary geometric device (AGD) firmly attached onto the implant scanbodies. The authors reported statistically significantly higher accuracy when the AGD was used regardless of the IOS scanner tested. Huang et al. [38] in an in vitro study have also reported improved complete-arch accuracy when modified, interconnected scanbodies on 4 implants were used. Motel et al. [65] in a recent in vitro study reported that scanning for a partial edentulous site with 3 adjacent implants in a single step (implant position scan only) led to more accurate results compared to scanning in two steps (emergence profile scan and implant position scan). The authors attributed this to the superimposition discrepancies that occur when the two scans are aligned in the scanner software. Finally, Alikhasi et al. [39] reported that the type of implant connection (internal or external) did not influence complete-arch scan accuracy using a confocal microscopy scanner in a maxillary edentulous jaw with 4 implants.

Success and survival of monolithic single and multiple implant restorations manufactured using the direct digital workflow

Clinical studies regarding implementation of the complete digital workflow have been reported in the literature (Table 6) with the focus being mainly on the rehabilitation of single posterior implants following a digital intraoral impression procedure with or without the fabrication of a 3D-printed or milled master cast. Monolithic zirconia crowns and monolithic lithium disilicate crowns have been studied individually or compared to each other or to a metal-ceramic counterpart for success and survival.

In the available literature on monolithic zirconia crowns, success ranged from 92 to 100% and survival ranged from 97.5 to 100% for a follow-up of 1–3 years [78,79,80,81]. Technical complications such as ill-fitting crown on a prefabricated abutment, fracture of a cusp, infra-occlusion, inferior aesthetics and crown de-cementation were reported. Biological complications were minimal. A recent in vivo study by Lerner et al. [82] also reported very promising results for monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated on hybrid zirconia abutments following an IOS procedure. Success and survival rates after a mean of 3 years of follow-up were 91.3% and 99% respectively with a 1.9% biologic and 5.7% prosthetic incidence rate.

Available literature on monolithic lithium disilicate CAD-CAM crowns also shows encouraging results. Short-term in vivo studies exhibited a success rate of 89–100% and a survival rate of 100% for a follow-up of 2–3 years [5, 81]. Technical complications such as minor chippings were observed. Biological complications were again minimal.

Joda and coworkers reported on a cohort of patients rehabilitated with single-implant, porcelain-layered zirconia crowns following an IOS impression and a digital model fabrication process [83, 84]. At 3 years follow-up, both the success and survival rates were 100% and the patients reported high levels of satisfaction [84]. After 5 years of function however, one implant was lost leading to a success/survival rate of 95%. Mean bone loss around the implants increased significantly by 0.23 mm mesially and 0.17 mm distally compared to baseline [83].

A recent in vivo study reported on the fit of 2,3 and 4-units zirconia fixed partial dentures on 2 implants following a complete digital workflow [85] (Table 7.) The authors claimed that interimplant angulation exceeding 10 degrees could negatively influence the passive fit of the restorations as opposed to their counterparts, fabricated through a conventional workflow. Interimplant distance, on the other hand, exhibited no significant effect on passive fit of either group.

With regard to time efficiency of the digital workflow, several studies have reported statistically significant shorter clinical and laboratory working times for the complete digital, compared to a semi-digital or conventional workflow for single-implant rehabilitation [79, 86,87,88]. Regarding patient satisfaction, evidence also supported the significantly superior acceptance of the digital workflow in terms of comfort and ease of the IOS impression procedure compared to the conventional elastomeric impression [88, 89], although the final aesthetic outcome of monolithic zirconia restorations has been reported to be inferior to their porcelain-layered zirconia counterparts [78].

Within the scope of this review, no studies on the complete direct digital workflow for rehabilitation of multiple implants in edentulous arches were identified. Systematic reviews on the success and survival of implant-supported, zirconia complete fixed dentures fabricated through a conventional impression workflow, suggest that the use of monolithic or minimally veneered zirconia frameworks may help eliminate frequent complications encountered with veneering porcelain chipping [90, 91]. Minimal buccal veneering can also aid in solving the aesthetic problem often encountered with such designs but this restorative option has yet to be tested within the concept of the direct digital workflow.

Conclusions

Based on this literature review, the following can be concluded:

The vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Important clinical factors such as scanning accuracy and prosthesis’s misfit and their effect on technical or biological complications can only be studied effectively in longitudinal in vivo studies. For the single and short span implant sites, the IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. When a semi-digital approach was elected, higher deviations in the position of the implant platform could be expected due to accumulated discrepancies in the 3D printing or milling fabrication process of the master model.

In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, there was no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression. On the contrary, digital complete-arch impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. 3D-printing of the master model could induce further discrepancies in the digital workflow depending on the printing technology and materials used.

Newer generation scanners exhibited complete-arch deviation levels below the current acceptable threshold. Operator experience was not an influencing factor for complete-arch accuracy with newer scanners but critical experience level is yet to be determined. Lighting conditions during scanning can influence IOS device accuracy.

All-PEEK, one-part scanbodies with cylindrical shape, smooth surfaces and adequate length were preferred. Implant angulation did not influence IOS accuracy when scanbodies with the above features were used. Both scanbody manufacturing tolerances and congruence between scanbody IOS mesh and CAD file have been shown to influence scan trueness and precision.

Increasing scanning range and inter-implant distance can influence scan accuracy. Using auxiliary removable devices and interconnecting the scanbodies making sure not to disrupt their shape and size for correct digital registration, showed promising results. Limited evidence also suggested that implant connection type did not influence scan accuracy.

Regarding the complete digital workflow, for single implants cases, monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates with minor technical complications for short to medium follow-up periods (3–5 years). Patient acceptance and total clinical and laboratory time efficiency has also been reported to be high. For multiple implants, this workflow has not yet been documented adequately for clinical use. Future studies on outcome measures such as patient acceptance, time efficiency, and technical and biological complications of multiple implant-supported prostheses should be conducted to draw clinical conclusions.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

CNC:

Computer numerically controlled

CEREC:

Chairside Economical Restoration of the Esthetic Ceramics

IOS:

Intraoral scanner

CAD:

Computer assisted design

CAM:

Computer assisted manufacturing

PEEK:

Polyetheretherketone

PE:

Polyether

PVS:

Polyvinylsiloxane

SLA:

Stereolithography

DLP:

Digital light processing

AWS:

Active wavefront sampling

AGD:

Auxiliary geometric device

FPD:

Fixed partial dentures

RP:

Rapid prototyping

References

  1. 1.

    Duret F, Preston JD. CAD/CAM imaging in dentistry. Curr Opin Dent. 1991;1:150–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Blatz MB, Conejo J. The current state of Chairside digital dentistry and materials. Dent Clin North Am. 2019;63:175–97.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Joda T, Brägger U. Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25:1304–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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;116(328–335):e2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Joda T, Ferrari M, Brägger U. Monolithic implant-supported lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns in a complete digital workflow: a prospective clinical trial with a 2-year follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017;19:505–11.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen C-J, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(184–190):e12.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Berntsen C, Kleven M, Heian M, Hjortsjö C. Clinical comparison of conventional and additive manufactured stabilization splints. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2018;4:81–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Carneiro Pereira AL, Martins de Aquino LM, Carvalho Porto de Freitas RF, Soares Paiva Tôrres AC, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. CAD/CAM-fabricated removable partial dentures: a case report. Int J Comput Dent. 2019;22:371–9.

  9. 9.

    Arnold C, Hey J, Schweyen R, Setz JM. Accuracy of CAD-CAM-fabricated removable partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:586–92.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lo Russo L, Caradonna G, Salamini A, Guida L. Intraoral scans of edentulous arches for denture design in a single procedure. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:215–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ. Using intraoral scanning to fabricate complete dentures: first experiences. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31:166–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Fang J-H, An X, Jeong S-M, Choi B-H. Digital intraoral scanning technique for edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:733–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Michelinakis G, Pavlakis M, Igoumenakis D. Rehabilitation of a maxillectomy patient using intraoral scanning impression technology and a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing fabricated obturator prosthesis: a clinical report. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18:282–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Soltanzadeh P, Su J-M, Habibabadi SR, Kattadiyil MT. Obturator fabrication incorporating computer-aided design and 3-dimensional printing technology: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:694–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flügge T, Fokas G, Tahmaseb A, Bechelli D, et al. Group 5 ITI consensus report: digital technologies. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):436–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Giachetti L, Sarti C, Cinelli F, Russo DS. Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review of clinical studies. Int J Prosthodont. 2020;33:192–201.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wong CKK, Narvekar U, Petridis H. Prosthodontic complications of metal-ceramic and all-ceramic, complete-arch fixed implant prostheses with minimum 5 years mean follow-up period. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2019;28:e722–35.

  18. 18.

    Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:124.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sulaiman TA. Materials in digital dentistry—a review. J Esthet Restor Dent Off Publ Am Acad Esthet Dent Al. 2020;32:171–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:149.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs. conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:792–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Mühlemann S, Greter EA, Park J-M, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: a within-subject comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:931–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19:101.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Chew AA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, Wong KM, Ng SD, Tan KB. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: effects of different scanners and implant level. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:70–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Chia VA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, Teo JW, Wong KM, Tan KB. In vitro three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: the effect of implant angulation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:313–21.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Del Corso M, Abà G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J, Dohan Ehrenfest DM. Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009;11:214–21.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Stimmelmayr M, Güth J-F, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit–an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:851–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Revilla-León M, Fogarty R, Barrington JJ, Zandinejad A, Özcan M. Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:202–10.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26:715–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. Accuracy in the digital workflow: from data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115:749–54.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Marghalani A, Weber H-P, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: an evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:574–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019;28:e902–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen C-J, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:465–72.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1360–7.

  35. 35.

    Miyoshi K, Tanaka S, Yokoyama S, Sanda M, Baba K. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31:74–83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Kim KR, Seo K-Y, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122:543–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:366–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31:625–33.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:3761750.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz M-F, Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cirugia Bucal. 2019;24:e89-95.

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Papaspyridakos P, Chen Y-W, Alshawaf B, Kang K, Finkelman M, Chronopoulos V, et al. Digital workflow: in vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:589–93.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Revilla-León M, Gonzalez-Martín Ó, Pérez López J, Sánchez-Rubio JL, Özcan M. Position accuracy of implant analogs on 3D printed polymer versus conventional dental stone casts measured using a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthodont. 2018;27:560–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Flügge T, Att W, Metzger M, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:277–83.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0163107.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61:450–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:92.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Kim RJ-Y, Benic GI, Park J-M. Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0222070.

  48. 48.

    Giménez B, Pradíes G, Martínez-Rus F, Özcan M. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:56–64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:648–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Mutwalli H, Braian M, Mahmood D, Larsson C. Trueness and precision of three-dimensional digitizing intraoral devices. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:5189761.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C, et al. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63:396–403.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sami T, Goldstein G, Vafiadis D, Absher T. An in vitro 3D evaluation of the accuracy of 4 intraoral optical scanners on a 6-implant model. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:748–54.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:755–60.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Kim J-E, Hong Y-S, Kang Y-J, Kim J-H, Shim J-S. Accuracy of scanned stock abutments using different intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2019;28:797–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, Petridis H. Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31:107–13.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int Berl Ger. 1985;2015(46):9–17.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Rutkūnas V, Gečiauskaitė A, Jegelevičius D, Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10:101–20.

  58. 58.

    Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen Y-W, Natto Z, et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont. 2020;29:281–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes 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;17:e54-64.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Ciocca L, Meneghello R, Monaco C, Savio G, Scheda L, Gatto MR, et al. In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018;13:1097–108.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, Zechner W, Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64:128–36.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Özcan M, Pradíes G. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthodont. 2017;26:650–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Gintaute A, Papatriantafyllou N, Aljehani M, Att W. Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures for multiple straight and tilted dental implants. Int J Esthet Dent. 2018;13:550–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Lin W-S, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:102–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2020;29:309–14.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:96–104.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:343–52.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Schmidt A, Billig JW, Schlenz M, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Influence of the accuracy of intraoral scanbodies on implant position: differences in manufacturing tolerances. Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32:430–2.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Mangano F, Lerner H, Margiani B, Solop I, Latuta N, Admakin O. Congruence between meshes and library files of implant scanbodies: an in vitro study comparing five intraoral scanners. J Clin Med. 2020;9:2174.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Sawyers J, Baig MR, El-Masoud B. Effect of multiple use of impression copings and scanbodies on implant cast accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;34:891–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Revilla-León M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascón W, Zandinejad A, Özcan M, et al. Intraoral digital scans—part 1: influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:372–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Revilla-León M, Subramanian SG, Özcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner. J Prosthodont Off J Am Coll Prosthodont. 2020;29:107–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Flügge T, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger M. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144:471–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    Lee KM. Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three-dimensional surface analysis. Prog Orthod. 2018;19:6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Mizumoto RM, Alp G, Özcan M, Yilmaz B. The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21:987–94.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Iturrate M, Lizundia E, Amezua X, Solaberrieta E. A new method to measure the accuracy of intraoral scanners along the complete dental arch: a pilot study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2019;11:331–40.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Etxaniz O, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;121:447–54.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Delize V, Bouhy A, Lambert F, Lamy M. Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: prosthodontic and patient-centered outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:892–902.

  79. 79.

    Mangano F, Veronesi G. Digital versus analog procedures for the prosthetic restoration of single implants: a randomized controlled trial with 1 year of follow-up. BioMed Res Int. 2018;2018:5325032.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Mangano F, Margiani B, Admakin O. A novel full-digital protocol (SCAN-PLAN-MAKE-DONE®) for the design and fabrication of implant-supported monolithic translucent zirconia crowns cemented on customized hybrid abutments: a retrospective clinical study on 25 patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:317.

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    De Angelis P, Passarelli PC, Gasparini G, Boniello R, D’Amato G, De Angelis S. Monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate versus monolithic CAD-CAM zirconia for single implant-supported posterior crowns using a digital workflow: a 3-year cross-sectional retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:252–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Lerner H, Mouhyi J, Admakin O, Mangano F. Artificial intelligence in fixed implant prosthodontics: a retrospective study of 106 implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns inserted in the posterior jaws of 90 patients. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20:80.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Joda T, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. CAD/CAM implant crowns in a digital workflow: five-year follow-up of a prospective clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21:169–74.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Joda T, Ferrari M, Bragger U. A prospective clinical cohort study analyzing single-unit implant crowns after three years of loading: introduction of a novel Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1291–5.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Rutkunas V, Larsson C, Vult von Steyern P, Mangano F, Gedrimiene A. Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22:237–245.

  86. 86.

    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;30:1047–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Joda T, Brägger U. Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:1401–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1318–23.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Joda T, Brägger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:e185–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Pieralli S, Kohal R-J, Rabel K, von Stein-Lausnitz M, Vach K, Spies BC. Clinical outcomes of partial and full-arch all-ceramic implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:224–36.

  91. 91.

    Bidra AS, Tischler M, Patch C. Survival of 2039 complete arch fixed implant-supported zirconia prostheses: a retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:220–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    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;21:446–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Joda T, Ferrari M, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of posterior single-implant crowns using digital workflows: a randomized controlled trial with a three-year follow-up. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:954–61.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

No funding was received.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

GM executed the search strategy, compiled the data and prepared the manuscript. DA assisted in the search strategy and revised the manuscript. PK reviewed the manuscript. GP reviewed the manuscript. MÖ reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Michelinakis.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Michelinakis, G., Apostolakis, D., Kamposiora, P. et al. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 21, 37 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intraoral scanning
  • 3D printing
  • Dental implants
  • Accuracy
  • Review