Private Practice, 5 Plateia Riga Feraiou Sqr, 71201, Heraklion, Crete, Greece.
Private Practice, Chania, Crete, Greece.
BMC Oral Health. 2021 Jan 21;21(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2.
The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced through a direct digital workflow were reported.
A MEDLINE (Pubmed) search of the relevant English-language literature spanning from January 1st 2015 until March 31st 2020 was conducted. In vitro studies comparing digital implant impression accuracy by different IOS devices or in vitro studies examining differences in accuracy between digital and conventional impression procedures were included. Also, RCTs, clinical trials and case series on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, manufactured completely digitally were included. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting on restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow, case reports and non-English language articles were excluded. The aim was to investigate the accuracy of IOS for single and multiple fixed implant restorations compared to the conventional impression methods and report on the variables that influence it. Finally, this study aimed to report on the survival and success of fixed implant-retained restorations fabricated using the direct digital workflow.
For the single and short-span implant sites, IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression was identified. Moreover, complete-arch IOS impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. Factors related to scanbody design as well as scanner generation, scanning range and interimplant distance were found to influence complete-arch scanning accuracy. Single implant-retained monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates and minor complications for short to medium follow-up periods.
The vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Nevertheless, intraoral scanning exhibited high accuracy both for single and multiple implant restorations. Available literature on single-implant monolithic restorations manufactured through a complete digital workflow shows promising results for a follow-up of 3-5 years.
本叙述性综述旨在探讨 IOS 程序在单颗和多颗固定种植体修复中的适用性。本文报告了通过直接数字化工作流程制作的整体氧化锆和锂硅玻璃陶瓷修复体的临床效果。
对 2015 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 3 月 31 日发表的相关英文文献进行了 MEDLINE（PubMed）搜索。本研究纳入了比较不同 IOS 设备的数字化种植体印模精度的体外研究，或评估数字化和传统印模程序之间精度差异的体外研究。此外，还纳入了关于完全数字化制作的单颗和多颗种植体上整体氧化锆和锂硅玻璃陶瓷修复体的成功率和/或存活率的 RCT、临床试验和病例系列研究。本研究排除了通过间接数字化工作流程制作修复体的体外和体内研究、病例报告和非英文文献。目的是研究 IOS 用于单颗和多颗固定种植体修复的准确性，并与传统印模方法进行比较，同时报告影响其准确性的因素。最后，本研究旨在报告使用直接数字化工作流程制作的固定种植体修复体的存活率和成功率。
对于单颗和短跨度种植体部位，IOS 精度较高，虚拟种植体位置的偏差在可接受的临床范围内。对于多颗种植体的全口无牙颌，尚未确定传统、夹板、定制托盘印模程序与 IOS 印模相比具有优越性。此外，全口 IOS 印模比传统、非夹板、开口或闭口托盘印模更准确。扫描体设计以及扫描仪生成、扫描范围和种植体间距离等因素被发现会影响全口扫描的准确性。单颗种植体固位的整体修复体在短至中等随访期内显示出高成功率和存活率，以及较小的并发症。
大多数确定的研究都是体外研究，这限制了它们的临床意义。然而，口内扫描在单颗和多颗种植体修复中都具有较高的准确性。通过完全数字化工作流程制作的单颗种植体整体修复体的现有文献显示，3-5 年随访结果有较好的前景。
