Complete digital workflow for prosthesis prototype fabrication with double digital scanning: A retrospective study with 45 edentulous jaws.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of fit of complete-arch printed prosthesis prototypes generated with a digital workflow protocol for completely edentulous jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five edentulous jaws (35 patients) underwent intraoral complete-arch digital scans with the double digital scanning (DDS) technique and the generated standard tessellation language (STL) files were superimposed and imported into computer-aided design software. After STL merging, each master STL file was used for printing a prosthesis prototype. The primary outcome was the accuracy of fit assessment of the printed prototypes on verified master stone casts. Two experienced clinicians tested the accuracy of fit with radiographs and screw-resistance tests. Secondary outcomes were the effect of the scan body shape and implant number on the accuracy of fit. RESULTS: Out of the 45 DDS-generated prosthesis prototypes, 39 presented with accurate fit on verified master stone casts, yielding an 86.70% accuracy of fit. Cylindrical scan bodies led to 100% accuracy of fit (25/25), whereas polygonal scan bodies presented with 70% accuracy of fit (14/20). Four implant-supported prostheses yielded 100% accuracy of fit (12/12), compared with 25/29 (86.30%) accuracy of fit for the six-implant-supported ones. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the effect of different scan body shapes (p = 0.005) and implant number on accuracy of fit. Chi-squared test was used to assess the association between the number of implants per arch and the accuracy of fit (p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-nine out of 45 complete-arch prosthesis prototypes generated with a completely digital workflow presented with clinically acceptable fit. The effect of the scan body design and implant number was statistically significant, favoring cylindrical scan bodies and four-implant-supported prostheses.

Digital vs Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws.

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of comparative clinical studies assessing the accuracy of full-arch digital scans versus conventional implant impressions. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the three-dimensional (3D) deviations between full-arch digital scans and conventional implant impressions for edentulous maxillae and mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients (36 edentulous jaws) were treated with one-piece, screw-retained implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs). Twenty-one jaws were maxillary, and 15 were mandibular. Full-arch conventional impressions and intraoral digital scans with scan bodies and an intraoral scanner had been taken during the impression phase. Following verification of the conventional stone casts, the casts were digitized. The generated standard tessellation language (STL) files from both impression techniques were merged and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary aim was to evaluate the accuracy between conventional and digital full-arch scans, while the effect of the edentulous jaw in 3D accuracy was the secondary aim. RESULTS: The cumulative 3D (mean ± SD) deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full-arch digital scans and digitized stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 88 ±24 µm. In the maxillary group, the mean ± SD 3D deviation was 85 ±25 µm, compared to 92 ±23 µm for the mandibular group (p = 0.444). CONCLUSION: The 3D implant deviations found between the full-arch digital and conventional impressions lie within the clinically acceptable threshold. No statistically significant difference was identified between maxillary and mandibular jaws in terms of 3D deviations.

Tooth preservation vs. extraction and implant placement in periodontally compromised patients: A systematic review and analysis of studies.

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies with a minimum of 5-years follow-up, reporting on the management of periodontally compromised teeth with either extraction and subsequent implant placement or teeth preservation with conventional periodontal treatment and application of regenerative procedures. The outcomes of these two approaches, based on clinical and radiographic data and the incidence of tooth- and implant-loss, were also investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search for studies reporting on clinical and radiographic outcomes of periodontal treatment or replacement of periodontally compromised teeth with implants was conducted in 3 electronic databases, followed by a hand-search in 8 journals. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series with prospective design were included. RESULTS: The initial search resulted in 1080 papers. After the first two screenings, 24 publications were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. The treatment protocols for the teeth preservation group contained nonsurgical and/or surgical periodontal treatment with or without regeneration procedures. The implant studies included extraction of periodontally involved teeth and implant placement with or without bone and soft tissue augmentation, followed by restoration with fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Survival rates ranged between 81.8% and 100% in the tooth retention group, and between 94.8% and 100% in the implant group. In the extraction group, no complications were reported for 76.09% of the implants. Similarly, no complications were reported for 86.83% of the tooth retention group. The lack of standardized comparable studies prohibited conduction of a metaanalysis. CONCLUSION: Both treatment approaches, treatment of periodontally compromised teeth, or tooth extraction followed by implant placement, present high survival rates. The application of bone regeneration techniques improves the long-term prognosis of periodontally involved teeth. Hence, treatment of periodontally involved teeth with subsequent application of a rigorous maintenance protocol can be a viable alternative for a number of years, before proceeding to extraction and replacement with dental implants. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed in order to draw definite conclusions on the subject.