For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
9
views
26
references
 Top references
cited by
5
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      81
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Posterior Maxillary Rehabilitations Supported by One Straight and One Tilted Implant: A 3-Year Prospective Comparative Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare digital and traditional prosthetic workflow for posterior maxillary restorations supported by an upright and a distally tilted implant at 3-year follow-up.

          Materials and Methods

          Twenty-four patients were treated in the posterior maxilla with 24 immediately loaded axial and 24 distally tilted implants supporting 3-unit or 4-unit screw-retained prostheses. Three months after initial loading patients were randomly stratified into two groups: definitive traditional impressions were carried out in the control group, while digital impressions were performed in the test group. The framework-implant connection accuracy was evaluated by means intraoral digital radiographs at 3, 6, 12, and 36 months of follow-up examinations. Outcome considerations comprised implant and prosthetic survival and success rates, marginal bone level changes, and required clinical time to take impressions.

          Results

          A total of 24 patients received immediately loaded screw-retained prostheses supported by an upright and a distally tilted implant (total 48 implants). No implant dropouts occurred, showing an overall survival rate of 100% for both groups. None of the 24 fixed prostheses were lost during the observation period (prosthetic survival rate of 100%). No statistically significant differences in marginal bone loss were found between control and test groups. The digital impression procedure required on average less clinical time than the conventional procedure.

          Conclusions

          Clinical and radiologic results suggest that digital impression is a predictable procedure for posterior maxillary restorations supported by an upright and a distally tilted implant.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The efficacy of horizontal and vertical bone augmentation procedures for dental implants - a Cochrane systematic review.

          Maria Grusovin, Paul Coulthard, Pietro Felice … (2008)
          dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without horizontal or vertical bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation. to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary and which is the most effective technique for horizontal and vertical bone augmentation. the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were hand searched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. The last electronic search was conducted on 11 June 2009. randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone horizontally and/or vertically for implant treatment that reported the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection. Trials were divided into two broad categories: horizontal augmentation and vertical augmentation techniques. screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient. 13 RCTs out of 18 potentially eligible trials were suitable for inclusion. Three RCTs (106 patients) dealt with horizontal and 10 trials (218 patients) with vertical augmentation. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, only one meta-analysis could be performed. When comparing whether vertical augmentation procedures were more advantageous than short implants, a meta-analysis of two trials resulted in more implant failures OR = 5.74 (95% CI 0.92 to 35.82; borderline significance, P = 0.06) and statistically significantly more complications OR = 4.97 (95% CI 1.10 to 22.40) in the vertically augmented group. When comparing various horizontal augmentation techniques (three trials) no statistically significant differences were observed. When comparing various vertical bone augmentation techniques (eight trials) no statistically significant differences were observed except for three trials which showed that more vertical bone gain could be obtained with osteodistraction than with inlay autogenous grafts (mean difference 3.25 mm; 95% CI 1.66 to 4.84), and with bone substitutes rather than autogenous bone in guided bone regeneration (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.99) in posterior atrophic mandibles, and that patients preferred a bone substitute block over a block of autogenous bone taken from the iliac crest (OR = 0.03; 95% CI 0.00 to 0.64; P = 0.02). conclusions are based on few trials including few patients, sometimes having a short follow-up, and often being judged to be at high risk of bias. Various techniques can augment bone horizontally and vertically, but it is unclear which are the most efficient. Short implants appear to be a better alternative to vertical bone grafting of resorbed mandibles. Complications, especially for vertical augmentation, are common. Some bone substitutes could be a preferable alternative to autogenous bone. Osteodistraction osteogenesis allows for more vertical bone augmentation than other techniques, which, on the other hand, can allow for horizontal augmentation at the same time. Titanium screws may be preferable to resorbable screws to fixate onlay bone grafts.
          Article 0 comments Cited 51 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems.

            S Ender, Adriana Mehl (2013)
            The digital intraoral impression is a central part in today's CAD/CAM dentistry. With its possibilities, new treatment options for the patient is provided and the prosthetic workflow is accelerated. Nowadays, the major issue with intraoral scanning systems is to gain more accuracy especially for larger scan areas and to simplify clinical handling for the dentist. The aim of this study was to investigate different scanning strategies regardingtheir accuracy with full arch scans in an in-vitro study design. A reference master model was used for the digital impressions with the Lava COS, the Cerec Bluecam and a powderfree intraoral scanning system, Cadent iTero. The trueness and precision of each scanning protocol was measured. Lava COS provides the a trueness of 45.8 microm with the scanning protocol recommended from the manufacturer. A different scanning protocol shows significantly lower accuracy (trueness +/- 90.2 microm). Cerec Bluecam also benefits from an optimal scanning protocol with a trueness of +/- 23.3 microm compared to +/- 52.5 microm with a standard protocol. The powderfree impression system Cadent iTero shows also a high accurate full-arch scan with a trueness of +/- 35.0 microm and a precision of +/- 30.9 microm. With the current intraoral scanning systems, full arch dental impressions are possible with a high accuracy, if adequate scan strategies are used. The powderfree scanning system provides the same level of accuracy compared to scanning systems with surface pretreatment.
            Article 0 comments Cited 40 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Tilting of posterior mandibular and maxillary implants for improved prosthesis support.

              L Krekmanov, Joseph Kahn, B Rangert … (2015)
              Rehabilitation of atrophied edentulous arches with endosseous implants in the posterior regions is often associated with anatomic problems such as jaw shape and location of the mental loop, mandibular canal, and maxillary sinuses. The purpose of this investigation was to modify the method for implant placement in the posterior part of the jaws to extend fixed implant-connected prostheses further distally, and to reduce the length of cantilevers in complete-arch prostheses without transpositioning the mandibular nerve or performing bone grafting in the maxilla. Forty-seven consecutive patients were treated with implants (25 patients/36 mandibular implants, 22 patients/30 maxillary implants) placed in tilted positions. They were followed a mean of 40 months (mandibles) and 53 months (maxillae). In the mandible, implants close to the mental foramina were tilted posteriorly approximately 25 to 35 degrees. In the maxilla, the posterior implants were placed close to and parallel with the sinus walls and were titled anteriorly/posteriorly approximately 30 to 35 degrees. Patients gained a mean distance of 6.5 mm of prosthesis support in the mandible and 9.3 mm in the maxilla, as a result of implant tilting. There were no implant failures in mandibles. The cumulative success rates in the maxilla at 5 years were 98% for tilted implants and 93% for non-tilted implants. Paresthesias of the mental nerve were observed on 4 sides during the first 2 to 3 weeks after implant placement. Analysis of the load distribution in one mandibular case showed no significant difference between tilted and the non-tilted implants, and the improved prosthesis support was confirmed. Satisfactory medium-term results concerning osseointegration and significant extension of prosthesis support show that the method can be recommended. This technique may allow for longer implants to be placed with improved bone anchorage.
              Article 0 comments Cited 39 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Paolo Capparé:
                ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7277-6583
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Biomed Res Int
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Biomed Res Int
                Journal ID (publisher-id): BMRI
                Title: BioMed Research International
                Publisher: Hindawi
                ISSN (Print): 2314-6133
                ISSN (Electronic): 2314-6141
                Publication date Collection: 2018
                Publication date (Electronic): 11 November 2018
                Volume: 2018
                Electronic Location Identifier: 4149107
                Affiliations
                Department of Dentistry, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital and Dental School, Vita Salute University, Via Olgettina N. 48, Zip Code 20123 Milan, Italy
                Author notes

                Guest Editor: Henriette Lerner

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7277-6583
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3707-5762
                Article
                DOI: 10.1155/2018/4149107
                PMC ID: 6252190
                PubMed ID: 30534562
                SO-VID: ed749870-304c-46f2-83b1-2a6f1f6d0ca5
                Copyright © Copyright © 2018 Francesco Ferrini et al.
                License:

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 9 August 2018
                Date accepted : 11 October 2018
                Categories
                Subject: Research Article

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content81

                See all similar

                Cited by8

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors287

                See all reference authors