Statement of the Problem: The application of digital impressions for complete‐arch implant supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP) remains controversial, and data from a systematic review with meta‐analysis comparing intraoral scanning (IOS) and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) remain limited.Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of currently available digital technologies, specifically IOS and SPG, in capturing complete‐arch implant impressions.Materials and Methods: An electronic and manual search was conducted on May 4, 2024, across PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases following PRISMA guidelines. The search targeted studies (excluding case reports) that assessed the in vivo, in vitro, or ex vivo accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete‐arch implant impressions. Two investigators screened eligible studies using the QUADAS‐2 tool. Accuracy was the primary outcome, including linear, angular, surface deviations, and inter‐implant distance. Three meta‐analyses were performed on angular deviations, trueness, and surface deviations, trueness, and precision using a random‐effect model.Results: Thirteen studies (3 in vivo and 10 in vitro) met inclusion criteria, displaying methodological heterogeneity (8 analyzing surface, 3 linear, 8 angular, and 3 interimplant distance deviations). The studies evaluated seven IOS (Aoralscan 3, Carestream 3600, iTero Element 2, iTero Element 5D, Primescan, Trios 3, and Trios 4) and two SPG devices (PIC and ICam4D). The number of implants ranged from 4 to 8. SPG reported higher accuracy than IOS in 10 of 13 studies. One in vitro study found IOS to have higher trueness but lower precision, another in vitro study found higher accuracy with IOS, and one in vivo study showed comparable trueness. Meta‐analyses of in vitro studies revealed significant differences favoring SPG in surface deviation trueness and precision, and angular deviation trueness (p < 0.05), with reported effects of 3.426, 4.893, and 1.199. SPG showed surface trueness and precision, and angular trueness mean ranges 5.18–48.74 and 0.10–5.46 μm, and 0.24°–0.80°, while IOS ranges 14.8–67.72 and 3.90–37.07 μm, and 0.28°–1.74°.Conclusions: Within study limitations, SPG showed to be a more reliable technology than IOS for complete‐arch digital implant impression, exhibiting significantly greater trueness and precision. IOS reported an angular deviation exceeding the 1° threshold required for a passive fit. Further clinical trials are required for conclusive evidence. Until then, a rigid prototype try‐in is still recommended.Trial Registration: CRD42024490844

The aim of this study was to systematically review the current scientific literature regarding the accuracy of fully guided flapless implant positioning for complete-arch rehabilitations in edentulous patients and to assess if there was any statistically significant correlation between linear deviation at shoulder point, at apex point and angular deviation. The electronic and manual literature search of clinical studies was carried out using specified indexing terms. A total of 13 studies were eligible for qualitative analysis and 277 edentulous patients were rehabilitated with 1556 implants patients by means of fully guided mucosa-supported template-assisted flapless surgery. Angular deviation was 3.42° (95% CI 2.82–4.03), linear deviation at shoulder point 1.23 mm (95% CI 0.97–1.49) and linear deviation at apex point 1.46 mm (95% CI 1.17–1.74). No statistically significant correlations were found between the linear and angular deviations. A statistically significant correlation was found between the two linear deviations (correlation coefficient 0.91) that can be summarized by the regression equation y = 0.03080 + 0.8254x. Computer-assisted flapless implant placement by means of mucosa-supported templates in complete arch restorations can be considered a reliable and predictable treatment choice despite the potential effects that flapless approach could bring to the overall treatment.

Objectives: To evaluate clinical, radiological performance of novel digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation to streamline in one‐visit single‐implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone.Material and methods: Consecutive patients requiring one single‐implant in aesthetic zone of both jaws were treated between May and September 2017. Primary outcomes were implant and prosthetic success rates, surgical and prosthetic complications, marginal bone loss (MBL), final pink aesthetic score (PES‐f), and implant stability quotient (ISQ‐f). Secondary outcomes were ISQ‐0 and PES‐0 at implant positioning and PES‐p at definitive prosthesis placement. Potential effect of jaw (maxilla vs mandible), biotype (thin vs thick), type of incision (flap vs flapless), and implant site (healed vs. post‐extractive) on the primary outcomes (MBL, PES‐f, and ISQ‐f) was evaluated through a multivariable analysis.Results: Fifty‐two implants were placed (follow‐up 18.6, 15–20 months). One post‐extractive implant failed. No other surgical, biological complications occurred, accounting for 98.10% cumulative success rate (CSR). No definitive prostheses failed. Mean MBL was −0.63 ± 0.25 mm (−1.69 to −0.06). PES‐f was 12.34 ± 1.41 (9–14). ISQ‐f was 78.1 ± 3.2 (70–84). Age had significantly negative effect on MBL and PES‐f (p = .0058 and p = .0052). No other variables significantly affected primary outcomes.Conclusions: Within study limitations, investigated digital workflow integrating dynamic navigation was reliable for single‐implant immediate loading in aesthetic zone in one visit. No statistically significant difference was found for MBL, PES‐f, and ISQ‐f, considering type of incision (flap vs. flapless), implant site (healed vs post‐extractive), jaw (maxilla vs. mandible), and biotype (thick vs. thin). Live‐tracked dynamic navigation may have contributed to improve operator clinical performance regardless of implant site characteristics. Further investigations are needed to confirm positive outcomes.

Aim: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess possible histomorphometric differences in new bone formation and in remaining graft particles when hyaluronic acid (HA) was added and mixed with graft materials in bone regeneration. Materials and methods: This review was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) of the National Institute of Health Research (registration number CRD42024530030). Electronic research was performed, and involved studies published up to 29 February 2024 using a specific word combination. The primary outcome was to assess possible histomorphometric differences in new bone formation and in remaining graft particles when HA was added and mixed with graft materials in bone regeneration. The search resulted in 138 potential studies. Meta-analyses were performed using the fixed and random effects model to identify significant changes in new bone formation and in the remaining graft particles. Results: After screening procedures, only three randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The effect size of HA in the new bone formation was not statistically significant at 95% CI (Z = 1.734, p-value = 0.083, 95 % CI -,399; 6516). The effect size of HA in the remaining graft particles was not statistically significant at 95% CI (Z = −1.042, p-value = 0.297, CI -,835; 255). Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present systematic review and meta-analysis, the addition of HA to bone graft did not result in significant changes in bone regeneration procedures in terms of new bone formation and residues, even if the included studies showed encouraging and promising results.