Taxonomic discordance of immersive realities in dentistry: A systematic scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: This review aimed to map taxonomy frameworks, descriptions, and applications of immersive technologies in the dental literature. DATA: The Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines was followed, and the protocol was registered at open science framework platform (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/H6N8M). SOURCES: Systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases, and complemented by manual search. STUDY SELECTION: A total of 84 articles were included, with 81 % between 2019 and 2023. Most studies were experimental (62 %), including education (25 %), protocol feasibility (20 %), in vitro (11 %), and cadaver (6 %). Other study types included clinical report/technique article (24 %), clinical study (9 %), technical note/tip to reader (4 %), and randomized controlled trial (1 %). Three-quarters of the included studies were published in oral and maxillofacial surgery (38 %), dental education (26 %), and implant (12 %) disciplines. Methods of display included head mounted display device (HMD) (55 %), see through screen (32 %), 2D screen display (11 %), and projector display (2 %). Descriptions of immersive realities were fragmented and inconsistent with lack of clear taxonomy framework for the umbrella and the subset terms including virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), mixed reality (MR), augmented virtuality (AV), extended reality, and X reality. CONCLUSIONS: Immersive reality applications in dentistry are gaining popularity with a notable surge in the number of publications in the last 5 years. Ambiguities are apparent in the descriptions of immersive realities. A taxonomy framework based on method of display (full or partial) and reality class (VR, AR, or MR) is proposed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding different reality classes can be perplexing due to their blurred boundaries and conceptual overlapping. Immersive technologies offer novel educational and clinical applications. This domain is fast developing. With the current fragmented and inconsistent terminologies, a comprehensive taxonomy framework is necessary.

Dental implant placement with immersive technologies: A preliminary clinical report of augmented and mixed reality applications.

A preliminary clinical report of implant placements with 2 immersive reality technologies is described: augmented reality with head mounted display and mixed reality with a tablet PC. Both immersive realities are promising and could facilitate innovative dental applications. However, mixed reality requires further development for clinical optimization.

Guided implant surgery with R2Gate®: A multicenter retrospective clinical study with 1 year of follow-up.

PURPOSE: To present the results obtained with a novel sleeveless and keyless guided implant surgery system. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for this multicenter clinical retrospective study were fully or partially edentulous patients who had been treated with a sleeveless and keyless guided implant surgery system (R2Gate®, Megagen), and who had been rehabilitated with fixed restorations, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. All surgeries and prosthetic procedures were conducted following the same protocol, and data were obtained from the patients' medical records. The outcomes were the fit and stability of the surgical guide, any intra-operative and immediate post-operative complications, any biologic and prosthetic complications that occurred during the 1-year follow-up period, implant survival, and prosthetic success. RESULTS: Sixty patients were selected for the installation of 124 implants, through a guided procedure: 66 sleeveless, keyless surgical guides were manufactured. The incidence of immediate intra-operative (lack of space: 12.1%; lack of implant stability 2.6%) and immediate post-operative (pain and discomfort: 6.6%; mild swelling 3.3%) complications was low. In total, 112/124 implants (90.3%) were successfully placed with a guided procedure, in 52 patients; among them, 82 (73.2%) were placed with a flapless procedure. Thirty fixtures supported single crowns (SCs), 42 fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and 52 full-arch (FA) restorations. Sixty-two fixed prosthetic restorations (30 SCs, 22 FPDs and 10 FAs) were delivered; among these restorations, 15 (24.1%) were subjected to immediate functional loading. All implants (100%) survived. Two implants had peri­implant mucositis (1.6%), two SCs had abutment screw loosenings (1.6%), two FAs and one FPD had ceramic chipping/fracture (2.4%), for an overall prosthetic success amounting to 88.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, this novel guided surgery system appeared to be clinically reliable; further studies are needed to confirm these results. STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of sleveless and keyless surgical guides can be clinically reliable and may be represent a valid option for the surgeon.