BackgroundNowadays implant placement protocols are widespread among clinicians all over the world. However, available literature, only partially analyses what can be potential benefits for the clinicians and patients, often focusing just on specific aspects, such as accuracy. The purpose of this review is to compare computer guided implant placement with conventional treatment protocols.MethodsA search strategy according to the P-I-C-O format was developed and executed using an electronic MEDLINE plus manual search from 2000 up to December 2016. This review included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on subjects treated with digital workflow for oral implant placement compared to conventional procedures. Data were extracted from eligible papers and analysed. All kinds of outcomes were considered, even patient-related and economical outcomes.ResultsThe search strategy revealed 16 articles; additional manual searches selected further 21 publications. Afterwards the evaluation of articles, only two studies could be selected for subsequent data extraction. The two identified RCTs analysed primary outcomes as prosthesis failure, implant failure, biological or prosthetic complications, and secondary outcomes as periimplant marginal bone loss. One RCT evaluated also the duration of treatment, post-surgical progress, additional treatment costs and patient satisfaction. The other RCT focused instead on evaluating eventual improvement of patient’s quality of life. In both selected studies, were not observed by the authors statistically significant differences between clinical cases treated with digital protocols and those treated with conventional ones. In one RCT, however post-surgical progress evaluation showed more patients’ self-reported pain and swelling in conventional group.ConclusionsWithin the limitation of this review, based on only two RCTs, the only evidence was that implant survival rate and effectiveness are similar for conventional and digital implant placement procedures. This is also confirmed by many other studies with however minor scientific evidence levels. Reduction of post-operative pain, surgical time and overall costs are discussed. Authors believe that scientific research should focus more in identifying which clinical situations can get greatest benefits from implant guided surgery. This should be done with research protocols such as RCT that assess comprehensively the advantages and disadvantages of fully digital surgical protocols.

Purpose: To present the application of custom-made 3D-printed subperiosteal implants for fixed prosthetic restoration of the atrophic posterior mandible of elderly patients. Methods: Between January 2017 and June 2018, all partially edentulous patients aged over 65 years, with two or more missing teeth in the posterior atrophic mandible, and who did not want to undergo bone regenerative procedures, were included in this study. These patients were rehabilitated with custom-made subperiosteal implants, designed from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and fabricated in titanium by means of direct metal laser sintering (DMLS). The outcome measures were fit and stability of the implants at placement, duration of the intervention, implant survival, and early and late complications. All patients were followed for 1 year after surgery. Results: Ten patients (four males, six females; mean age 69.6, SD ± 2.8, median 69, 95% CI 67.9-71.6) were included in the study. The fit of the implants was satisfactory, with a mean rating of 7 out of 10 (SD ± 1.6, median 7, 95% CI 6-8). Only two implants had insufficient fit, because of the presence of scattering in the CBCT; however, they were adapted to the sites during the interventions. The mean duration of the intervention was 44.3 min (SD ± 19.4, median 37, 95% CI 32.3-56.3). At the one-year follow-up, no implants were lost (survival rate 100%). One implant presented immediate postoperative complications with pain, discomfort and swelling, and two patients experienced late complications, having their provisional restorations fractured during the temporisation phase. All these complications were minor in nature, but the final complication rate amounted to 30% (three of ten patients). Conclusions: Although this study has limits (small patient sample and short follow-up), DMLS has proven to be an effective method for fabricating accurate subperiosteal implants, with high survival rates. This may represent an alternative treatment procedure in elderly patients with a severely atrophic posterior mandible, since it allows avoidance of regenerative bone therapies. Further studies are needed to confirm these outcomes.

Scope. To demonstrate guided implant placement and the application of fixed, implant-supported prosthetic restorations with a fully digital workflow. Methods. Over a 2-year period, all patients with partial edentulism of the posterior maxilla, in need of fixed implant-supported prostheses, were considered for inclusion in this study. The protocol required intraoral scanning and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), the superimposition of dental-gingival information on bone anatomy, surgical planning, 3D-printed teeth-supported surgical templates, and modelling and milling of polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) temporaries for immediate loading. After 3 months, final optical impression was taken and milled zirconia frameworks and 3D-printed models were fabricated. The frameworks were veneered with ceramic and delivered to the patients. Results. Fifteen patients were selected for this study. The surgical templates were stable. Thirty implants were placed (BTK Safe®, BTK, Vicenza, Italy) and immediately loaded with PMMA temporaries. After 3 months, the temporaries were replaced by the final restorations in zirconia-ceramic, fabricated with a fully digital process. At 6 months, none of the patients reported any biological or functional problems with the implant-supported prostheses. Conclusions. The present procedure for fully digital planning of implants and short-span fixed implant-supported restorations has been shown to be reliable. Further studies are needed to validate these results.

No abstract

(1) Background: Intraoral scanners (IOS) are widely used in prosthodontics. However, a good trueness is mandatory to achieve optimal clinical results. The aim of the present in vitro study was to compare two IOS considering the operator’s experience and different implant clinical scenarios. (2) Methods: Two IOS (IT—Itero, Align Technology; and OP—Opera MC, Opera System, Monaco) were compared simulating three different clinical scenarios: single implant, two implants, and full-arch rehabilitation. Ten scans were taken for each configuration by two different operators (one expert, one inexperienced); influence of operator experience and the type of scanner used was investigated. (3) Results: Trueness of the scans differed between the experienced and non-experienced operator and this difference was statistically significant in all the three scenarios (p = 0.000–0.001, 0.037). A significant difference was present between the scanners (p = 0.000), in the two-implant and full-arch scenarios (p = 0.00). (4) Conclusions: Experience of the operator significantly affect trueness of IT and OP scanners. A statistically significant difference was present among IOS in the two-implant and full-arch scenarios.