This article presents a comparison between different attachment systems used to retain and support maxillary and mandibular overdentures in completely edentulous patients. A literature review based on a MEDLINE search limited to English-language articles published from 1988 to the present was performed, and a large number of attachments available in the dental market were reviewed with regard to several factors, including: (1) implant survival rate, (2) marginal bone loss, (3) soft tissue complications, (4) retention, (5) stress distribution, (6) space requirements, (7) maintenance complications, and (8) patient satisfaction. These factors are considered essential for the successful outcome and good long-term prognosis of the prostheses. Selection criteria previously published in the literature are discussed as well. Product names and manufacturers are mentioned only if related to attachment systems, as they are cited in the original articles.

Purpose: To systematically review in vitro and clinical studies comparing quantitatively the 3D accuracy (global implant deviations) of digital vs conventional implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients. Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify in vitro and clinical studies, reporting on the 3D accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. Secondary outcomes were the effect of implant angulation, type of conventional impression technique, and type of intraoral scanner on the accuracy of implant impressions. Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 9 in vitro studies and 1 clinical study reporting on completely edentulous impressions, while 6 in vitro and 2 clinical studies reported on partially edentulous impressions. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed for 5 completely edentulous and 6 partially edentulous studies. The studies exhibited high values for heterogeneity. A random effects model was conducted to estimate the effect size. Based on 5 in vitro studies on completely edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 8.20 µm (95% CI: −53.56, 37.15) and the digital impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.72). Based on 1 clinical and 5 in vitro studies on partially edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 52.31 µm (95% CI: 6.30, 98.33) and the conventional impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.03). Five in vitro and 2 clinical studies were not included in the quantitative analysis due to heterogeneity in the methodology. Implant angulation affected the accuracy in favor of the partially edentulous conventional impressions whereas the effect of different scanners was not statistically significant on the completely edentulous impressions (p = 0.82). Conclusions: Digital scans appear to have comparable 3D accuracy with conventional implant impressions based mainly on in vitro studies. However, clinical trials are recommended to investigate the clinical accuracy of digital scans and digitally fabricated interim or prototype prostheses, before digital implant scans can be recommended for routine clinical use.

The purpose of the present report is to illustrate a proof‐of‐concept protocol with the double digital scanning (DDS) technique for complete digital workflow in double full‐arch implant rehabilitation. Two patients (4 restored arches) presented with hopeless dentitions and they were treated with a 4‐appointment prosthodontic protocol and monolithic zirconia prostheses implementing a complete digital workflow. The outcomes are presented after clinical and radiographic observation for 2 years.

No abstract

Within the limitations of this study, the results suggested that the translucency and background color significantly influenced the lithium disilicate glass ceramic color among the BL1, A2, and C3 ceramic shades. Changing the underlying color from a lighter background to a darker background resulted in increased color differences.