Introduction. Digital impressions in implant dentistry rely on many variables, and their accuracy, particularly in complete edentulous patients, is not well understood. Aim. The purpose of this literature review was to determine which factors may influence the accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry. Emphasized attention was given to the design of the intra-oral scan body (ISB) and scanning techniques. Materials and methods. A Medline, PubMed and EBSCO Host databases search, complemented by a hand search, was performed in order to select relevant reports regarding the appliance of digital impressions in implant dentistry. The search subject included but was not limited to accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry, digital scanning techniques, the design and material of the ISBs, and the depth and angulation of the implant. The related titles and abstracts were screened, and the remaining articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected for full-text readings. Results. The literature search conducted for this review initially resulted in 108 articles, among which only 21 articles fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. Studies were evaluated according to five subjects: accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry; the design and material of the intra-oral scan bodies; scanning technique; the influence of implants depth/angulations on the digital impression and accuracy of different intra-oral scanner devices. Conclusions. The accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry depends on several aspects. The depth/angulation of the implant, the experience of the operator, the intra-oral scanner used, and environmental conditions may influence the accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry. However, it seems that ISBs’ design and material, as well as scanning technique, have a major impact on the trueness and precision of digital impressions in implant dentistry. Future research is suggested for the better understanding of this subject, focusing on the optimization of the ISB design and scanning protocols.

The objective of this paper is to anatomically describe the bone morphology in the maxillary and mandibular tooth areas, which might help in planning post-extraction implants. CBCT images (Planmeca ProMax 3D) of 403 teeth (208 upper teeth and 195 lower teeth) were obtained from 49 patients referred to the Dental School of Seville from January to December 2014. The thickness of the facial wall was measured at the crest, point A, 4 mm below, point B, and at the apex, point C. The second parameter was the angle formed between the dental axis and the axis of the basal bone. A total of 403 teeth were measured. In the maxilla, 89.4% of incisors, 93.94% of canines, 78% of premolars and 70.5% of molars had a buccal bone wall thickness less than the ideal 2 mm. In the mandible, 73.5% of incisors, 49% of canines, 64% of premolars and 53% of molars had < 1 mm buccal bone thickness as measured at point B. The mean angulation in the maxilla was 11.67 ± 6.37° for incisors, 16.88 ± 7.93° for canines, 13.93 ± 8.6° for premolars, and 9.89 ± 4.8° for molars. In the mandible, the mean values were 10.63 ± 8.76° for incisors, 10.98 ± 7.36° for canines, 10.54 ± 5.82° for premolars and 16.19 ± 11.22° for molars. The high incidence of a buccal wall thickness of less than 2 mm in over 80% of the assessed sites indicates the need for additional regeneration procedures, and several locations may also require custom abutments to solve the angulation problems for screw-retained crowns.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental impressions with the accuracy of impressions obtained via conventional techniques. Methods: Two different master models were created, one with parallel implants (model 1) and the other with non-parallel implants (model 2). These reference master models included 4 Klockner KL RP implants (Klockner Implant System SA, Barcelona, Spain), which were juxta-placed and equidistant in the intermentoneal region. In model 1 the implants were placed parallel to each other, whereas in model 2 the implants were placed such that there was a divergence angle of 15° between the more distal implants, and a convergence angle of 15° between the two central implants. A total of four types of impressions were obtained from model 1 (four groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression groups for dragging copings, without splinting; open tray impressions for ferrules; and impressions obtained using the 3M^TM True Definition Scanner system. For model 2 three groups were created (three groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression for dragging copings, without splinting; and impressions obtained using the 3M^TM True Definition Scanner system. The master models and the models obtained using conventional methods were digitalized in order to compare them via an extraoral high-resolution scanner (Imetric IScan D104i, Porretruy, Switzerland). The STL (Stereo Lithography (format for transferring 3 dimensional shape information)) digital values were loaded into reverse-engineering software and superimposed with their respective STL master models in order to evaluate deviations in three dimensions. We then analyzed the squares of the deviations in the three axes and evaluated the median and the sum of the deviation square. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. The normality of the distributions was analyzed according to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The median comparison was performed using the differences between the medians, analyzed using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: For model 1, the deviations of the digital impressions were smaller than those associated with the conventional techniques. The sum value in group D was 1,068,292, which was significantly lower than those of groups A, B, and C, which were shown to be 2,114,342, 2,165,491, and 1,265,918, respectively. This improvement was not observed when using model 2, however, where the conventional techniques yielded similar results. Group F simultaneously presented the lowest total square sum of the three deviations (1,257,835), indicating a significantly higher accuracy for this group in model 2, while the sum values were 1,660,975 and 1,489,328 for groups E and G, respectively. Conclusion: Digital impressions of full-arch models were able to achieve the accuracy of conventional impressions in an in vitro model. Nevertheless, further in vivo studies are needed to validate these in vitro results.

The aim of this study was to compare the quality of different computer-assisted-design and computer assisted manufacturing systems (CAD-CAM) generated by only one scanner, focusing on vertical fit discrepancies and the mechanical properties. A master model was obtained from a real clinical situation: the replacement of an absent (pontic) tooth, with the construction of a fixed partial denture on natural abutments with three elements. Nine scans were performed by each tested and 36 copies were designed using a dental CAD-CAM software (Exocad). The frameworks were manufactured using three-axis and five-axis, with the same batch of the chrome-cobalt (CrCo) alloy. The frameworks were not cemented. A focus ion beam-high resolution scanning electron microscope (FIB-HRSEM) allowed us to obtain the vertical gap measurements in five points for each specimen. Roughness parameters were measured using white light interferometry (WLI). The samples were mechanically characterized by means of flexural tests. A servo-hydraulic testing machine was used with a cross-head rate of 1 mm/min. One-way ANOVA statistical analysis was performed to determine whether the vertical discrepancies and mechanical properties were significantly different between each group (significance level p < 0.05). The overall mean marginal gap values ranged: from 92.38 ± 19.24 µm to 19.46 ± 10.20 µm, for the samples produced by three-axis and five-axis machines, respectively. Roughness was lower in the five-axis machine than the three-axis one, and as a consequence, the surface quality was better when the five-axis machine was used. These results revealed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.005) in the mean marginal gap between the CAD-CAM systems studied. The flexural strength for these restorations range from 6500 to 7000 N, and does not present any statistical differences’ significance between two CAD-CAM systems studied. This contribution suggests that the number of axes improves vertical fit and surface quality due to the lower roughness. These claims show some discrepancies with other studies.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different implant sites an under-preparation sequence associated with two different implant designs on implant primary stability measured by two parameters: insertion torque (IT) and implant stability quotient (ISQ). It used two different implants: one cylindrical as a control and another one with a tapered design. The implants were inserted in type III fresh humid bovine bone and four drilling sequences were used: one control, the one proposed by the implant company (P1), and three different undersized (P2, P3 and P4). P2 was the same as P1 without the cortical drill, P3 was without the last pilot drill and P4 was without both of them. The sample size was n = 40 for each of the eight groups. Final IT was measured with a torquemeter and the ISQ was measured with Penguin resonance frequency analysis. Results showed that both ISQ and IT have a tendency to increase as the preparation technique reduces the implant site diameter when compared with the standard preparation, P1. The preparations without cortical drill, P2 and P4, showed the best results when compared with the ones with a cortical drill. Tapered implants always showed higher or the same ISQ and IT values when compared with the cylindrical implants. Giving the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that reducing implant preparation can increase IT and ISQ values. Removing the cortical drill and the use of a tapered design implant are also effective methods of increasing primary implant stability.

The pursuit of less time-consuming procedures led to the development of high-power light-curing-units (LCU) to light-cure dental-resin-based-materials. This review aims to describe high-power light-emitting-diode (LED)-LCUs, by a bibliometric systematization of in vitro and in vivo studies. The research-question, by PICO model, aimed to assess the current knowledge on dentistry-based high-power LED-LCUs by analyzing to what extent their use can promote adverse events on materials and patients’ oral condition when compared to low-power LED-LCUs, on daily dental practice. PubMed and B-on database search focused on high-power (≥2000 mW/cm²) LED-LCUs outputs. Studies assessing performance of high-power LED-LCUs for light-curing dental-resin-based-materials were included. From 1822 screened articles, 21 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two marketed units with high levels of radiant emittance (≥2000 mW/cm² up to 6000 mW/cm²) were identified. Most output values vary on 2000–3000 mW/cm². The highest output found was 6000 mW/cm², in FlashMax^™P3. Reports suggest that light-curing protocols with lower emittance irradiance and longer exposure outperforms all other combination, however in some clinical procedures high-power LED-LCUs are advocated when compared to low-power LED-LCUs. Moreover, long time exposures and over-curing can be dangerous to the biological vital pulp, and other oral tissues. Evidence showing that high-power LCUs are the best clinical option is still very scarce.