It can be concluded that the tissue of the guide support influences the accuracy of computer-aided implant surgery.

Purpose:To perform a systematic review on studies assessing clinical outcomes in patients rehabilitated with complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses according to the time of loading. Materials and Methods: Data obtained from patient and clinical outcomes, as implant failure, success rate, survival rate, biological complications, technical complications, mechanical complications, and marginal bone loss, were included on this review. The search was performed on databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane. Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled studies, and an adapted version of Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for observational studies. All data were tabulated according to the time of loading: (1) immediate restoration/loading, (2) early loading, and (3) conventional loading. Results: From a total of 4027 studies identified through the three databases, six of them were randomized controlled trials, five of them were prospective observational studies, and another five were retrospective observational studies. In total, 5954 implants, 1294 patients and 1305 full-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses were included in this review. There was a wide heterogeneity among clinical studies regarding the study design and treatment procedures. Thus, pooled estimates were not performed in order to avoid potential biases. The methodological assessment by the Modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale showed a moderate quality of observational studies. Regarding the RCTs studies, all of them presented at least one element of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. Conclusion: There is evidence of high survival-success implant rate (95-100%) for either loading protocols (immediate restoration/loading, early loading, and conventional loading). However, careful attention must be taken by clinician when interpreting the results reported in clinical studies. Future studies should be performed using standardized methodology in order to determine the true predictability regarding immediate, early, and conventional loading protocols.

No abstract

Gallardo YNR. Comparison of the 3D error of 2 face-scanning systems: Bellus 3D and + ID RECAP, an in vitro analysis [thesis].

El presente artículo de revisión hace referencia a los distintos sistemas de pilares que existen hoy en día en el mercado, mencionando su clasificación, criterios para seleccionarlos y sus característicasprincipales e indicaciones. Se incluyen estudios comparativos entre los diferentes sistemas de pilares, resaltando cuáles son sus ventajas y desventajas. Además se hace mención al sistema CAD-CAM como una alternativa de alta confiabilidad y menor tiempo clínico para laconfección de estos aditamentos.

The main objective of this review was to systematically assess the current dental literature comparing the accuracy of computer-aided implant surgery when using different supporting tissues (tooth, mucosa, or bone). Two reviewers searched PubMed (1972 to January 2015) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central) (2002 to January 2015). For the assessment of accuracy, studies were included with the following outcome measures: 1) angle deviation, 2) deviation at the entry point, and 3) deviation at the apex. Eight clinical studies from the 1,602 articles initially identified met the inclusion criteria for the qualitative analysis. Four studies (n= 599 implants) were evaluated using meta-analysis. The bone-supported guides showed a statistically significant greater deviation in angle (p<0.001), entry point (p=0.01), and the apex (p=0.001) when compared to the tooth-supported guides. Conversely, when only retrospective studies were analyzed not significant differences is revealed in the deviation of the entry point and apex. The mucosasupported guides indicated a statistically significant greater reduction in angle deviation (p=0.02), deviation at the entry point (p=0.002) and deviation at the apex (p=0.04) when compared to the bone-supported guides. Between mucosa-and toothsupported guides, there were no statistically significant differences for any of the outcome measures. It can be concluded that the tissue of the guide support influences the accuracy of computer-aided implant surgery.