This article compares the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) used in the digital impression of full arches to fabricate implant-supported complete prostheses. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/CPM9K). Six electronic databases, gray literature databases, and a manual search were performed in April 2022. Studies that evaluated the accuracy of intraoral scan impressions compared with conventional impressions in full-arch impressions were included for complete implant-supported prostheses. In addition, an adapted checklist for reporting in vitro studies was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects Hunter– Schmidt model. Nine studies were included in the analysis. IOS impressions present higher accuracy (137.86 μm) than conventional impressions (182.51 μm) (p<0.001). The heterogeneity of the study's methodology was I2¼18.34. However, impression accuracy varies significantly with scan body type, IOS type, scanning strategy, and modification technique. For most IOS systems, the acceptable clinical threshold of linear accuracy of 200 μm can be achieved, except for the True Definition Scanner in one of the studies. Based on the results of the included studies, digital impressions using IOS present similar or better linear accuracy than conventional impression techniques.

Purpose: This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the prevalence of interproximal contact loss (ICL) between implant restorations and adjacent teeth in relation to age, gender, follow‐up time, and arch location.Methods: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was “What is the prevalence of the ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth?” The search strategy used four main electronic databases and an additional manual search was performed until February 2023. Clinical studies that evaluated the prevalence of interproximal open contact between implant restorations and adjacent teeth were included. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. In addition, a single‐arm meta‐analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the percentage of mesial versus distal open contact and total ICL between implant restoration and adjacent teeth.Results: Fifteen studies published between 2014 and 2023 met the eligibility criteria. Seven studies presented ICL rates higher than 20%. All studies evaluated ICL in posterior regions (molar, premolar area). Five studies had an ICL rate lower than 50% and three studies had an ICL rate higher than 50%. One study assessed the interproximal contact at three months post‐restoration insertion, four studies assessed the interproximal contact at 1‐year follow‐up and nine studies evaluated the interproximal contact over 2 years of follow‐up. Mesial and distal ICL rates were 44.2% (95% CI: 30.6% to 58.6%) and 27.5% (95% CI: 10.5% to 55.0%), respectively. The heterogeneity between studies was high (I² (95% CI) = 87.8% (75.9% to 93.8%).Conclusion: Based on the results of the included studies, the prevalence of ICL was high, occurring more frequently at the mesial contact. There were no significant differences in relation to age, gender, and arch location.

Purpose: This systematic review and meta‐analysis aimed to evaluate the depth distortion and angular deviation of fully‐guided tooth‐supported static surgical guides (FTSG) in partially edentulous arches compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand.Material and Methods: This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and was registered in the Open Science Framework (OSF). The formulated population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) question was: “In partially edentulous arches, what are the depth distortion and angular deviation of FTSG compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand?” The search strategy involved four main electronic databases, and an additional manual search was completed in November 2023 by following an established search strategy. Initial inclusion was based on titles and abstracts, followed by a detailed review of selected studies, and clinical studies that evaluated the angular deviations or depth distortion in FTSG in partial arches, compared to partially guided surgical guides or freehand, were included. In FTSG, two surgical approaches were compared: open flap and flapless techniques, and two digital methods were assessed for surgical guide design with fiducial markers or dental surfaces. A qualitative analysis for clinical studies was used to assess the risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) system. In addition, a single‐arm meta‐analysis of proportion was performed to evaluate the angular deviation of freehand and FTSG.Results: Ten studies, published between 2018 and 2023, met the eligibility criteria. Among them, 10 studies reported angular deviations ranging from ‐0.32° to 4.96° for FTSG. Regarding FTSG surgical approaches, seven studies examined the open flap technique for FTSG, reporting mean angular deviations ranging from 2.03° to 4.23°, and four studies evaluated flapless FTSG, reporting angular deviations ranging from ‐0.32° to 3.38°. Six studies assessed the freehand surgical approach, reporting angular deviations ranging from 1.40° to 7.36°. The mean depth distortion ranged between 0.19 mm to 2.05 mm for open flap FTSG, and between 0.15 mm to 0.45 mm for flapless FTSG. For partially guided surgical guides, two studies reported angular deviations ranging from 0.59° to 3.44°. Seven studies were eligible for meta‐analysis, focusing on the FTSG in open flap technique, with high heterogeneity (I² (95%CI) = 92.3% (88.7%–96.4%)). In contrast, heterogeneity was low in studies comparing freehand versus FTSG in open flap techniques (I² (95%CI) = 21.3% (0.0%–67.8%)), favoring the FTSG surgical approach.Conclusion: In partially edentulous arches, FTSG systems exhibited less angular deviation than freehand and partially guided surgical guides. Flapless surgical approaches were associated with reduced angular deviation and depth distortion, suggesting a potential preference for the FTSG method in these procedures.

Background: We compared the repeatability of the shade determination of resin composite restorations and acrylic teeth in light and darker shades at baseline and after an aging process through two digital tooth color-matching methods: using a Trios 3Shape intraoral scanner and using a Vita Easyshade Compact spectrophotometer. Material and Methods: Forty upper central incisor acrylic teeth in the shade A1 (n = 10) and A3 (n = 10) were randomly assigned to be restored with Filtek Bulk Fill in the shade A1 (n = 10) or A3 (n = 10). Subsequently, 20 Class V cavities were prepared in a standardized manner (mesio-distal = 3.0 mm, cervical–occlusal = 2.0 mm, depth = 1.5 mm). Cavities were restored using an universal adhesive system and resin composite in two increments and were light-cured. The shade difference between the resin composite Class V restorations in acrylic teeth of the A1 and A3 shades was evaluated at baseline and after aging. Aging was simulated using ultraviolet light for 120 h. An Easyshade device and an intraoral scanner were used under D65 illumination. Measurements were taken five times, on top of the restoration and on the acrylic teeth, in a randomized manner. Results: Data analysis was on the calculation of the arithmetic mean for the percentage of repeatability conducted by the Trios scanner and the Easyshade device. There was no statistically significant comparison between the shade measurement devices (p > 0.05). At baseline, the repeatability for both the Trios intraoral scanner and the Vita Easyshade Compact device for artificial teeth in the shades A1 and A3 was 100%. After aging, the trueness recorded by the intraoral scanner and the Easyshade device for artificial teeth in the shade A1 was 80%. For Class V restoration with shade A1, the intraoral scanner recorded 80% trueness and the Easyshade device recorded 60% trueness at baseline. For shade A3, the intraoral scanner recorded 60% trueness and the Easyshade device recorded 60% trueness. Conclusions: The intraoral scanner and Easyshade device are reliable for baseline shade selection, but their accuracy decreases after aging, particularly for darker shades.

Background: Lithium disilicate ceramic veneers are considered the gold standard in aesthetic dentistry due to their translucency, strength, and adhesive bonding properties. This clinical case report details the aesthetic rehabilitation of a patient through the use of pressed lithium disilicate veneers, highlighting the treatment workflow, material selection rationale, and the long-term functional and aesthetic outcomes achieved. Methods: A review was conducted to evaluate the long-term success of lithium disilicate. A case study is presented that involves a 32-year-old female patient with anterior tooth discoloration, minor morphological discrepancies, and a desire for smile enhancement. A conservative approach using pressed lithium disilicate was chosen to restore harmony and enhance natural aesthetics. The treatment involved minimally invasive tooth preparation, digital smile design, and adhesive cementation using a total-etch technique with light-cured resin cement. High-resolution intra-oral and extra-oral photographs documented the case, capturing the preoperative, preparation, and final restoration stages. These images highlight shade matching, margin adaptation, and smile transformation after veneering. Results: Postoperative evaluation showed excellent aesthetic outcomes, color integration, and marginal adaptation, with the patient expressing high satisfaction. The veneers exhibited optimal translucency and strength, ensuring long-term durability. A one-year follow-up revealed no debonding, marginal discoloration, or surface degradation, confirming the clinical reliability of lithium disilicate veneers. Conclusions: Lithium disilicate provides predictability, durability, and high aesthetic results, making it an ideal choice for minimally invasive smile enhancement. The use of photographic documentation emphasizes the importance of case planning, precise preparation, and adhesive bonding for successful outcomes. Future research should focus on long-term survival rates and complication prevention to further refine material selection and bonding protocols.