Scanning edentulous arches during complete denture fabrication is a crucial step; however, the quality of the resulting digital scan is still questionable. The purpose of this study is to systematically review studies (both clinical and in vitro) and determine whether intraoral scanners have clinically acceptable accuracy when recording completely edentulous arches for the fabrication of removable complete dentures. An electronic search in medical databases like PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS), using a combination of relevant keywords, retrieved 334 articles. After full-text evaluation, twelve articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria for this review (eight clinical studies and four in vitro studies). A quality analysis of the included studies was carried out using the QUADAS-2 tool. The accuracy values varied between different intraoral scanners. Different regions of the edentulous arches showed differences in trueness and precision values in both in vitro and clinical studies. Peripheral borders, the inner seal, and poorly traceable structures like the soft palate showed maximum discrepancies. The accuracy of intraoral scanners in recording clear anatomic landmarks like hard tissues with attached mucosa was comparable to conventional edentulous arch impressions. However, higher discrepancies were recorded when digitizing mobile and poorly traceable structures. Intraoral scanners can be used to digitize denture-bearing areas, but the interpretation of the peripheral border and the soft palate should be carefully carried out.

Ematically review the in vivo studies comparing marginal, axial, and occlusal fit of single-unit ceramic crowns fabricated after digital impressions with the ones fabricated after conventional impressions. The PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane online databases were searched for studies comparing the digital impression technique with the conventional technique for single-unit ceramic crowns. Data extraction was done for the year of publication, type of study, country, number of patients, impression system (intraoral scanner [IOS] or conventional impression), marginal fit, axial fit, and occlusal fit. Ten studies were included for meta-analysis regarding the discrepancy in marginal fit, axial fit, and occlusal fit. The digital impression proved to be better than the conventional impression. The mean difference for marginal fit was 6.54 μm (heterogeneity P < 0.00001, I2 = 93%), for axial fit 24.69 μm (heterogeneity P = 0.34, I2 = 11%), and for occlusal fit 6.99 μm (heterogeneity P = 0.03, I2 = 59%). The results of meta-analyses suggest that there is no significant difference between the impression systems (marginally favoring digital impression). The digital impression technique provided better marginal and internal fit of single-unit ceramic crowns than the conventional impression technique. The digital workflow using IOS provided a clinically acceptable marginal fit for single-unit crowns....

Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research aims to publish findings of doctors at grass root level and post graduate students, so that all unique medical experiences are recorded in literature.

B of Science databases was performed using the keywords “dental implants,” “anterior esthetics,” “esthetic score,” and “esthetic index.” Besides, a manual search of dental implant journals was carried out. Results: The electronic search revealed 932 titles. After further review, 14 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Because of the heterogeneity of the study designs, interventions, and parameters used for assessment of esthetics, no meta-analysis could be performed. Conclusion: Many indices have been proposed for the evaluation of the esthetic aspects of single implant-supported reconstructions in the anterior maxilla. All of them have some advantages and drawbacks that this review pointed out. The evidence level of studies used for the validation of these indices is poor. It is necessary to achieve a consensus on the tools for assessment of the esthetic aspect and perform evidence-based studies to validate an appropriate index....

The performance of cobalt chromium (Co-Cr) removable partial dentures (RPDs) is well established, but a comparison with the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in terms of fit, retention, clinical performance, patient outcomes, and associated complications is lacking. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on the performance of PEEK as a framework or clasp material compared with Co-Cr for the fabrication of RPDs. An electronic search for articles in the English language through PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases from 2000 to 2024 and screened by 2 independent reviewers was made to identify in vitro or clinical studies comparing PEEK with Co-Cr for the fabrication of RPD frameworks and clasps. From 327 studies identified, 13 were included: 9 in vitro and 4 clinical studies. Data were extracted regarding the number of participants, types of prosthesis, arch of placement, follow-up period, fit, retention, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Four of the 9 in vitro studies evaluated the fit of the RPD framework. Five in vitro studies assessed the retention of the prostheses and reported that PEEK demonstrated durability and retention forces comparable with Co-Cr. Four clinical trials compared PROMs and bone loss patterns associated with PEEK and Co-Cr. Clinical studies and in vitro research comparing PEEK and Co-Cr frameworks for RPDs are still sparse. However, current evidence indicates a comparable fit with mean ±standard deviation gap distance of 42.8 ±29.4 µm for PEEK frameworks and 130.9 ±50.5 µm for Co-Cr frameworks. Additionally, retention, and patient satisfaction with PEEK frameworks were found similar to those of conventional Co-Cr frameworks.

Objectives: To evaluate the current evidence of digital workflow feasibility based on the data acquisition methods and the software tools used to fabricate intraoral prostheses for patients with partial or total maxillary and mandibular defects. Materials and methods: An electronic search was performed in PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science using a combination of relevant keywords: digital workflow, digital designing, computer-assisted design-computer aided manufacturing, 3D printing, maxillectomy, and mandibulectomy. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of evidence in the studies reviewed. Results: From a total of 542 references, 33 articles were selected, including 25 on maxillary prostheses and 8 on mandibular prostheses. The use of digital workflows was limited to one or two steps of the fabrication of the prostheses, and only four studies described a complete digital workflow. The most preferred method for data acquisition was intraoral scanning with or without a cone beam computed tomography combination. Conclusion: Currently, the fabrication process of maxillofacial prostheses requires combining digital and conventional methods. Simplifying the data acquisition methods and providing user-friendly and affordable software may encourage clinicians to use the digital workflow more frequently for patients requiring maxillofacial prostheses.