Immediate digital implant scanning workflow for posterior single implant-supported crowns: A case series

Knowledge structure and research hotspots on digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis: A bibliometric analysis

Background

Digital scanning is increasingly widely used for implant-supported complete-arch prosthese. However, a quantitative literature analysis is lacking for this field. This study aims to conduct a bibliometric analysis to summarize the knowledge structure and research hotspots of digital scanning for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis.

Materials and methods

Relevant articles and reviews, published between 1994 and 2023, were obtained from the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC). Indicators such as publication count, annual growth, citation count, co-citation count, impact factor, Journal citation reports (JCR) division, H-index are used to assess the contribution of countries, journals, authors or the quality of articles. Visual maps, cluster analysis and keyword cloud are used to evaluate the cooperation pattern and topic trends.

Results

580 eligible publications, including 555 articles and 25 reviews, were analyzed. The United States is the leading country in this area, received the most citations. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the scientific journal with the highest impact. The analysis of keywords and ongoing trials shows that the accuracy of relevant techniques is a current hot topic in this field.

Conclusion

In recent years, digital scanning technique for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis has made rapid progress. By reviewing the published literature, we found the United States is the global leader in the field of digital scanning for complete-arch implant prosthesis. Accuracy is the core word in this field, more scientific evidence is needed to support the clinical application of digital scanning in this field.

Clinical Evaluation of Pink Esthetic Score of Immediately Impressed Posterior Dental Implants

PURPOSE

While comparative outcome results for peri-implant crestal bone levels, mucosal margin position, and peri-implant indices have been reported, no studies are available that evaluate and compare the esthetic result of impressions performed immediately with that of impressions performed of healed implants. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the Pink Esthetic Score (PES) of posterior implants restored with an immediate impression workflow compared to implants restored with a delayed impression workflow.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-eight eligible participants who had received a single implant crown either in the premolar or molar regions at least 4 months before the study, were identified by an electronic health record review and scheduled for a single-visit study appointment. Esthetic outcomes were measured using the Pink Esthetic Score (PES). Several local- and prosthesis-related factors were recorded and their association with the selected outcome was assessed. Two-sample t-test was used for comparisons between the groups.

RESULTS

PES ranged between 4 and 12 (mean: 8). No significant difference between immediate (8.36 ± 1.12) and delayed (7.76 ± 2.14) impression workflow groups were seen for the total PES (p = 0.25). In addition, individual comparisons between immediately and delayed impressed implants for mesial papilla (1.27 ± 0.47; 0.88 ± 0.78), distal papilla (0.73 ± 0.65; 0.76 ± 0.83), tissue margin (1.73 ± 0.47; 1.47 ± 0.51), tissue contour (1.27 ± 0.65; 0.82 ± 0.64), alveolar process (0.82 ± 0.60; 1.00 ± 0.87), color (1.27 ± 0.65; 1.29 ± 0.69), and texture (1.36 ± 0.50; 1.53 ± 0.62) did not show significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that the Pink Esthetic Score is not significantly different between single posterior implants impressed with the immediate and delayed implant workflows. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Clinical Evaluation of Crestal Bone Levels, Peri-Implant Indices, and Mucosal Margin Position of Immediately Impressed Posterior Dental Implants: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

This is a cross-sectional clinical study to evaluate crestal bone levels, mucosal margin position, probing depths, bleeding on probing, and plaque and bleeding indices of implants restored with an immediate impression workflow compared to implants restored with a delayed impression workflow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients who had received a posterior single implant crown in the premolar and molar regions were identified and scheduled for a single-visit study appointment. Outcome measurements included soft tissues peri-implant indices, peri-implant mucosal margin position, and crestal bone levels. Several systemic-, local-, and prosthesis-related factors were recorded. Bitewing radiographs were used to assess crestal bone levels. Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the medians of continuous measurements and Pearson chi-square test (or Fisher's exact test) was used to compare the distributions of categorical variables between the two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty eight patients were included. Crestal bone levels, peri-implant mucosal margin position and peri-implant soft tissue parameters for the immediately impressed group were not statistically different from the delayed impressed group, except for probing depth for the immediately impressed buccal site, which was less than that of the delayed group. Mesial bone level for cement-retained crowns was significantly more coronal than for screw-retained ones.

CONCLUSIONS

While an isolated statistical difference was found in probing depth, the current study suggests that there is no clinically significant difference between implants impressed with immediate and delayed implant workflows when considering crestal bone levels, peri-implant mucosal margin position, and most peri-implant indices.