Comparative analyses of time efficiency and cost in fabricating fixed implant-supported prostheses in digital, hybrid, and conventional workflows: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Economic considerations affect whether new technologies are adopted in dental practice. Limited evidence exists regarding the time and cost efficiency of different workflows for fabricating implant-supported restorations. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the time and cost involved in fabricating fixed implant-supported prostheses using digital, hybrid, and conventional methods throughout the entire prosthetic treatment by analyzing both clinical and laboratory steps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-P 2015 guidelines. The methods and inclusion criteria were specified in a protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (registration number CRD42023458734). The databases PubMed, Cochrane, and PROSPERO were searched using keywords: (Prosthodontic OR restorative dentistry OR denture) AND (CAD CAM OR Digital workflow OR Computer Dentistry OR Digital Design) AND (Economic OR cost OR Financial OR time efficiency). Two investigators selected articles independently. RESULTS: A qualitative synthesis of 12 articles published from 2010 to 2023 showed that digital scans took less time than conventional impressions (P<.05) in 7 out of 9 articles. Additionally, 8 articles revealed significant reductions in laboratory working time with digital workflows, intermediate times with hybrid workflows, and longer times with conventional workflows (P<.001). Meta-analysis confirmed the time efficiency of digital scanning over conventional impressions (Hedges g=1.65, 95% CI [0.33, 2.98]) and a substantial reduction in laboratory time with digital workflows compared with other workflows (Hedges g=6.55, 95% CI [2.69; 10.42]). However, no significant difference was found in adjustment time between digital and other workflows (Hedges g=0.91, 95% CI [-0.72; 2.55]). Direct laboratory costs were observed to be higher in conventional workflows compared with hybrid or digital workflows, with hybrid workflows also showing elevated costs compared with digital workflows (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: The digital workflow demonstrates potential benefits in reducing scan time, laboratory processing time, and direct laboratory costs for implant-supported restorations in partial edentulism. Further research is needed to validate these findings, particularly for long-span implant-supported fixed partial prostheses.

Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accuracy of conventional polyether impressions and digital scans produced by five intra-oral scanners (IOSs) in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism for long-span implant-supported prostheses. METHODS: This in vitro study involved the impression of a maxillary model with free-end partial edentulism, in which six implants were placed before digitization using a desktop scanner to generate a digital reference model. Conventional impressions (Impregum Penta Soft, 3M) and digital scans with five IOSs (Trios 3 and 4, 3Shape; Primescan, Dentsply-Sirona; CS 3600, Carestream Dental; and i-500, Medit) were obtained. Conventional impressions were digitized using the same desktop scanner. Each digital STL file of conventional or digital impressions was superimposed over the reference STL file to enable comparison. Trueness was assessed by calculating angles and distance deviations. For precision, dispersions of values around their means were also measured. RESULTS: The mean distance deviation was significantly higher for conventional impressions (454.24 ± 334.70 µm) than for IOSs (ranging from 160.98 ± 204.48 µm to 255.56 ± 395.89 µm) (p < 0.001). The mean angular deviation was high with conventional impressions (1.82 ± 1.51°), intermediate with CS 3600 (1.38 ± 1.42°), Primescan (1.37 ± 2.54°) and Trios 4 (1.30 ± 0.64°) scanners, and lower with I500 (0.97 ± 0.75°) and Trios 3 (1.01 ± 0.85°) scanners (p < 0.001). The dispersion of distance values around their means was lowest with Trios 3 and i-500, followed by CS3600, Primescan, and Trios 4, respectively, and higher for conventional impressions (p < 0.001). The dispersion of angular values was smallest with i-500, Trios 3, and Trios 4 compared with other groups and was highest with Primescan (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of the current study, Trios 3 scanner exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by i-500, Trios 4, CS 3600, Primescan, and conventional impressions respectively. IOSs might be reliable for the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Passive adaptation of the implant-supported framework is a challenge when rehabilitating patients with maxillary free-end partial edentulism. While Conventional impressions remain a reliable and validated technique, but IOSs demonstrated higher accuracy, suitable for the fabrication of long-span implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arch.

Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study.

Both conventional and digital impressions aim to record the spatial position of implants in the dental arches. However, there is still a lack of data to justify the use of intraoral scanning over conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. The objective of the in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of conventional and digital impressions obtained with four intra-oral scanners: Trios 4 from 3Shape®, Primescan from Dentsply Sirona®, CS3600 from Carestream® and i500 from Medit®. This study focused on the impression of an edentulous maxilla in which five implants were placed for implant-supported complete prosthesis. The digital models were superimposed on a digital reference model using dimensional control and metrology software. Angular and distance deviations from the digital reference model were calculated to assess trueness. Dispersion of the values around their mean for each impression was also calculated for precision. The mean distance deviation in absolute value and the direction of the distance deviation were smaller for conventional impressions (p-value < 0.001). The I-500 had the best results regarding angular measurements, followed by Trios 4 and CS3600 (p < 0.001). The conventional and I-500 digital impressions showed the lowest dispersion of values around the mean (p-value < 0.001). Within the limitations of our study, our results revealed that the conventional impression was more accurate than the digital impression, but further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.