Time efficiency and efficacy of a centralized computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing workflow for implant crown fabrication: A prospective controlled clinical study

3D-printed short-span hybrid composite implant-supported restorations fabricated through tilting stereolithography: A retrospective clinical study on 85 patients with 1 year of follow-up

PURPOSE

To report the clinical results obtained with fixed short-span (single crowns [SCs] and fixed partial prostheses [FPPs]) implant-supported hybrid composite restorations fabricated through tilting stereolithography (TSLA).

METHODS

This retrospective clinical study included 85 patients who had been restored with 95 fixed short-span implant-supported hybrid composite (Irix Max®, DWS Systems) restorations (70 SCs and 25 FPPs up to three units) fabricated with TSLA. The full-digital model-free workflow was based on intraoral implant scanning, computer-assisted design (CAD) and 3D printing using TSLA (Dfab®, DWS Systems). The primary outcomes were the marginal adaptation, the quality of the occlusal and interproximal contact points, and the chromatic integration of the restorations, assessed independently by two experienced operators (a prosthodontist and a periodontist). A score from 1 to 5 (with 5 as the highest value, 4 for satisfactory quality, 3 for acceptable quality, and 2 and 1 as the lowest values, expressing unsatisfactory quality) was assigned by each operator to each restoration at delivery. The secondary outcomes were the survival and success of the restorations at the 1-year follow-up. The restoration was defined as successful in the absence of any complications throughout the follow-up period. A statistical analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

For the quality of the marginal closure and occlusal and interproximal contact points, the 3D-printed hybrid composite restorations scored highly; the aesthetic integration was satisfactory. One year after placement, all restorations survived, with a low incidence (4.2 % overall, 5.7 % SCs) of complications (two abutment screw loosenings, two decementation of the restorations, and one upper portion of the hybrid abutment decemented from the titanium base), for a success rate of 95.8 %.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this study (retrospective design, follow-up limited to 1 year from the delivery, and only cemented restorations included) fixed short-span implant-supported hybrid composite crowns and bridges fabricated through TSLA were clinically precise, presenting a low incidence of complications at 1 year.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of TSLA printing technology can open new perspectives for the treatment of small edentulous gaps with definitive implant-supported prosthetic restorations.

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.

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Workflow in Implant Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

The progress of digital technologies in dental prosthodontics is fast and increasingly accurate, allowing practitioners to simplify their daily work. These technologies aim to substitute conventional techniques progressively, but their real efficiency and predictability are still under debate. Many systematic reviews emphasize the lack of clinical RCTs that compare digital and traditional workflow. To address this evidence, we conducted a three-arm designed clinical RCT, which compares fully digital, combined digital, and analogic and fully analog workflows. We aimed to compare the clinical properties of each workflow regarding interproximal (IC) and occlusal contact (OC), marginal fit, impression time (IT), and patient satisfaction through a VAS scale. In total, 72 patients were included in the study. The IC and OC of the digital workflow were better than the others (p < 0.001), which obtained similar results. No difference between implant-abutment fit was observed (p = 0.5966). The IT was shorter in the digital workflow than the others (p < 0.001), which were similar. Patient satisfaction was higher in the digital workflow than in the conventional one. Despite the limitations, this study's results support better accuracy and patient tolerance of digital workflow than of conventional techniques, suggesting it as a viable alternative to the latter when performed by clinicians experienced in digital dentistry.

Single posterior implant-supported restorations fabricated using a scannable healing abutment versus a conventional scan body: A randomized controlled trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The use of a scannable healing abutment is a convenient option for fabricating implant-supported restorations (ISRs) with a digital workflow; however, clinical studies evaluating prosthetic efficacy are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate the prosthetic efficacy of definitive posterior single ISRs fabricated after scanning using a scannable healing abutment-scan peg (SHA-SP) in comparison with a conventional scan body (CSB). The time for data acquisition, quality of proximal and occlusal contacts, and relative occlusal force of ISRs were measured.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-four participants eligible for single ISRs to replace the mandibular first molar with adjacent and antagonist teeth present were randomly allocated to either a study group (n=12) receiving ISRs after intraoral scanning using an SHA-SP or a control group (n=12) receiving ISRs after intraoral scanning using CSB. During the surgical procedure, a prefabricated contoured scannable healing abutment was screwed to the implant in the SHA-SP group, while a custom-made healing abutment was used in the CSB group. After a healing period of 3 months, an intraoral scan was made, and the duration of data acquisition was recorded. The ISRs were milled from zirconia and evaluated for the quality of proximal and occlusal contacts using dental floss and shim stock, respectively. The relative occlusal forces of the ISRs and their contralateral natural teeth were measured using a digital occlusal analyzer. Statistical analysis was done using an independent sample t test for quantitative variables and a Pearson chi-squared test for qualitative variables between the tested groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

The direct digital workflow using SHA-SP was statistically less time consuming than the CSB (P<.001). The 2 groups were statistically similar regarding the quality of the proximal contacts (P=.281) or occlusal contacts (P=.307) and the relative occlusal forces of ISRs (P=.315). The relative occlusal forces of the ISRs in both groups were significantly lower than those of their contralateral natural teeth (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct digital workflow using SHA-SP was more rapid, saving clinical chairside time, and produced proximal and occlusal contacts of comparable quality with those obtained with CSB. The relative occlusal forces of ISRs in both workflows were lower than their contralateral natural teeth.

Fabrication of digital complete dentures guided by facial scanning with a device for recording the maxillomandibular relation: A dental technique

This article describes a technique for the fabrication of digital complete dentures guided by facial scanning using an innovative device for maxillomandibular relation records. For this, a device was designed and 3-dimensionally (3D) printed to assist in the maxillomandibular record stage. Digital files of the diagnostic casts, jaw relation record, and facial images were superimposed, and the complete denture was virtually planned. Subsequently, trial complete dentures were 3D printed, and a functional and esthetic clinical tooth evaluation was conducted. Then, definitive impressions were made, and definitive complete dentures were obtained. The method of recording the maxillomandibular relation associated with facial scanning in a digital workflow for manufacturing the dentures in a 3-appointment protocol provided better predictability of patient care and reduced clinical and laboratory time than with the conventional denture technique.

Trueness, precision, time-efficiency and cost analysis of chairside additive and subtractive versus lab-based workflows for manufacturing single crowns: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the trueness, precision, time efficiency, and cost of three different workflows for manufacturing single crowns (SCs).

METHODS

A plaster model with a prepared tooth (#15) was scanned with an industrial scanner, and an SC was designed in computer-assisted-design (CAD) software. Ten SCs were printed with a hybrid composite (additive chairside) and a stereolithographic (SLA) printer (Dfab®), 10 SCs were milled in lithium disilicate (subtractive chairside) using a chairside milling unit (inLab MC XL®), and 10 SCs were milled in zirconia (lab-based) using a five-axis laboratory machine (DWX-52D®). All SCs were scanned with the same scanner after polymerization/sinterization. Each scan was superimposed to the marginal area of the original CAD file to evaluate trueness: absolute average (ABS AVG), root mean square (RMS), and (90˚-10˚)/2 percentile were calculated for each group. Marginal adaptation and quality of the occlusal and interproximal contact points were also investigated by two prosthodontists on 3D printed and plaster models. Finally, the three workflows' time efficiency and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

Additive chairside and subtractive lab-based SCs had significantly better marginal trueness than subtractive chairside SCs in all three parameters (ABS AVG, p < 0.01; RMS, p < 0.01; [90˚-10˚]/2, p < 0.01). However, the two prosthodontists found no significant differences between the three manufacturing procedures in the quality of the marginal closure (p = 0.186), interproximal (p = 0.319), and occlusal contacts (p = 0.218). Both time efficiency and cost show a trend favoring the chairside additive workflow.

CONCLUSIONS

Chairside additive technology seems to represent a valid alternative for manufacturing definitive SCs, given the high marginal trueness, precision, workflow efficiency and low costs.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Additive chairside manufacturing of definitive hybrid composite SCs is now possible and shows high accuracy, time efficiency, and competitive cost.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Single Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns Following a Digital and Conventional Workflow: Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of single posterior screw-retained monolithic implant crowns following a digital and conventional workflow and to report on the survival/complication rate after a mean 4-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients with a single posterior tooth missing were rehabilitated with a bone-level implant. After a healing period of ≥3 months, they were subjected to both a digital and conventional workflow to fabricate two screw-retained monolithic implant crowns. The quantitative clinical adjustments to both crowns (intrasubject comparison) and a questionnaire were recorded at try-in. Thereafter, a crown of the digital and conventional workflows was randomly inserted. At the last follow-up, the marginal bone level (MBL), peri-implant health-related parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque, pocket probing depth (PPD)), and functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) were assessed. Furthermore, the implant survival and success rates and technical complications were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients were followed for a mean period of 4.23 ± 1.10 years. There was no significant difference between the digital and conventional workflows regarding clinical adjustments and questionnaire outcomes. More than twice as many participants recommended digital (n = 16) compared to conventional impressions (n = 7) to friends. The implant survival and success rate were 100% and 96.3%, respectively. Furthermore, two de-cementations and one fracture of the ti-base abutment occurred. There were no significant differences in BoP, plaque, and PPD metrics between the two groups. The changes in the MBL between implant crown insertion (baseline) and the last follow-up were 0.07 ± 0.19 mm and 0.34 ± 0.62 mm in the digital and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.195). The mean overall FIPS score was 8.11 ± 1.37 (range: 5-10).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical and radiographic outcomes of single screw-retained monolithic implant crowns were similar between both workflows after a mean of 4 years of service. The patients did not clearly prefer an impression technique for their restoration, although they would recommend the digital impression more often to friends. Thus, decision regarding clinical workflows may be based on the patient's and/or clinician's preference.

A double-blind randomized within-subject study to evaluate clinical applicability of four digital workflows for the fabrication of posterior single implant crown

OBJECTIVE

To compare efficiency and clinical efficacy of posterior single implant crowns (PSIC) fabricated using four digital workflows.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-two patients with one missing first molar were included. Each patient received four screw-retained implant crowns fabricated through four different workflows including a fully digital workflow with immediate digital impression (Group i-IOS), a fully digital workflow with digital impression after implant osseointegration (Group d-IOS), a model-based hybrid workflow using immediate analogue impression (Group i-AI), and a model-based hybrid workflow with conventional analogue impression after implant osseointegration (Group d-AI). The crown delivery sequence was randomized and blinded. The efficiency for each workflow and clinical outcome of each crown were recorded.

RESULTS

The average clinical working time in fully digital workflows (i-IOS 46.90 min, d-IOS 45.66 min) was significantly lower than that in the hybrid workflows (i-AI 54.59 min, d-AI 55.96 min; p < .001). Significantly more laboratory time was spent in hybrid workflows (i-AI 839.60 min, d-AI 811.73 min) as compared to fully digital workflows (i-IOS 606.25 min, d-IOS 607.83 min, p < .01). No significant differences in the chairside time at delivery were found. More crowns in Group i-AI (15%) needed additional laboratory interventions than in the other groups (p = .029).

CONCLUSION

Digital impression and model-free fully digital workflow improved prosthetic efficiency in the fabrication of PSIC. With the limitation that the results were only applicable to the implant system used and the digital technologies applied, findings suggested that workflows integrating immediate impression with implant surgery procedure was clinically applicable for restoration of PSIC.

Additively and subtractively manufactured implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A systematic review

AIM

To compare and report on the performance of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) fabricated using additive (AM) or subtractive (SM) manufacturing.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, Epistemonikos, clinical trials registries) with a focused PICO question: In partially edentulous patients with missing single (or multiple) teeth undergoing dental implant therapy (P), do AM iFDPs (I) compared to SM iFDPs (C) result in improved clinical performance (O)? Included were studies comparing AM to SM iFDPs (randomized clinical trials, prospective/retrospective clinical studies, case series, in vitro studies).

RESULTS

Of 2'184 citations, no clinical study met the inclusion criteria, whereas six in vitro studies proved to be eligible. Due to the lack of clinical studies and considerable heterogeneity across the studies, no meta-analysis could be performed. AM iFDPs were made of zirconia and polymers. For SM iFDPs, zirconia, lithium disilicate, resin-modified ceramics and different types of polymer-based materials were used. Performance was evaluated by assessing marginal and internal discrepancies and mechanical properties (fracture loads, bending moments). Three of the included studies examined the marginal and internal discrepancies of interim or definitive iFDPs, while four examined mechanical properties. Based on marginal and internal discrepancies as well as the mechanical properties of AM and SM iFDPs, the studies revealed inconclusive results.

CONCLUSION

Despite the development of AM and the comprehensive search, there is very limited data available on the performance of AM iFDPs and their comparison to SM techniques. Therefore, the clinical performance of iFDPs by AM remains to be elucidated.

The Complete Digital Workflow in Fixed Prosthodontics Updated: A Systematic Review

Digital applications have changed therapy in prosthodontics. In 2017, a systematic review reported on complete digital workflows for treatment with tooth-borne or implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Here, we aim to update this work and summarize the recent scientific literature reporting complete digital workflows and to deduce clinical recommendations. A systematic search of PubMed/Embase using PICO criteria was performed. English-language literature consistent with the original review published between 16 September 2016 and 31 October 2022 was considered. Of the 394 titles retrieved by the search, 42 abstracts were identified, and subsequently, 16 studies were included for data extraction. A total of 440 patients with 658 restorations were analyzed. Almost two-thirds of the studies focused on implant therapy. Time efficiency was the most often defined outcome (n = 12/75%), followed by precision (n = 11/69%) and patient satisfaction (n = 5/31%). Though the amount of clinical research on digital workflows has increased within recent years, the absolute number of published trials remains low, particularly for multi-unit restorations. Current clinical evidence supports the use of complete digital workflows in implant therapy with monolithic crowns in posterior sites. Digitally fabricated implant-supported crowns can be considered at least comparable to conventional and hybrid workflows in terms of time efficiency, production costs, precision, and patient satisfaction.