Objectives: Working Group 5 was assigned the task to review the current knowledge in the area of digital technologies. Focused questions on accuracy of linear measurements when using CBCT, digital vs. conventional implant planning, using digital vs.conventional impressions and assessing the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and patient-related outcome measurements when using s-CAIS were addressed. Materials and methods:The literature was systematically searched, and in total, 232 articles were selected and critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. Four systematic reviews were produced in the four subject areas and amply discussed in the group. After emendation, they were presented to the plenary where after further modification, they were accepted.Results: Static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), in terms of pain & discomfort, economics and intraoperative complications, is beneficial compared with conventional implant surgery. When using s-CAIS in partially edentulous cases, a higher level of accuracy can be achieved when compared to fully edentulous cases. When using an intraoral scanner in edentulous cases, the results are dependent on the protocol that has been followed. The accuracy of measurements on CBCT scans is software dependent. Conclusions:Because the precision intraoral scans and of measurements on CBCT scans and is not high enough to allow for the required accuracy, s-CAIS should be considered as an additional tool for comprehensive diagnosis, treatment planning, and surgical procedures. Flapless s-CAIS can lead to implant placement outside of the zone of keratinized mucosa and thus must be executed with utmost care. K E Y W O R D Saccuracy, computer-aided surgery, cone beam computed tomography, intraoral scans, oral implantology, patient-reported outcome measures sidering standardized conditions, and (b) it is crucial to address the software version and used scan protocol for further studies to create a reliable database for accurate statistical analyses.Although in clinical practice, single unit restorations are being performed using a digital workflow, there is a need for further research to conclude if it is a predictable and reliable procedure when compared to the conventional workflow.• There is a lack of literature about the accuracy of different intraoral scan bodies in terms of geometry, dimension, material, and surface characteristics. More studies regarding these aspects should be conducted.• In studies using scan bodies, design, and characteristics should be defined to make studies comparable.• Regarding multiple implant-supported restorations for partially dentate or edentulous cases, different scanning protocols should be developed and compared.The influence of distance between scan bodies, length and geometry of the edentulous span, mucosal morphology, and on the accuracy of digital impressions should be studied.The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies that assessed the accuracy of linear measurements of bone dimensions related to implant...

For narrow diameter abutments, the fracture strength of 2-piece internal connected zirconia abutments fixed on titanium resin bases was similar to those obtained for 1-piece titanium abutments. Narrow diameter zirconia abutments with internal connection exhibited higher fracture strength than zirconia abutments with an external connection. Titanium abutments with an internal connection were significantly stronger than identical zirconia abutments.

Trials comparing the overall performance of fully digital and conventional workflows in reconstructive dentistry are needed

Accuracy of dental implant impressions is directly associated with the accuracy and fit of the final implant-supported prosthesis (Lee et al., 2008;Papaspyridakos et al., 2014a). Misfitting prostheses may be related to the increased rate of biological and technical complications and affect the long-term success of dental implants and prosthetic reconstructions (Katsoulis et al., 2017).Although conventional implant impressions have served as a standard method for a long time, this workflow has its limitations as it involves a considerable number of separate clinical and laboratory steps, and resulting accuracy dependent on the skills

No abstract