Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the characteristics of intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy of intraoral scanning.Materials and Methods: An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library, up to March 2023. The literature search intended to retrieve all relevant clinical and in vitro studies about the effect that the various properties of ISBs may have on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanning. Only publications in English language were selected with animal studies, case reports, case series, technique presentation articles and expert opinions being excluded.Results: A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. They were published between 2019 and 2023 and were all in vitro studies. Among the parameters described, the scan body material, position, geometry, height, diameter, and fixation torque were evaluated. The most common materials used for ISBs were polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium alloys. The diameter and position of ISBs seemed to affect the trueness of implant impressions. Subgingival implant position and decreased ISB height affected negatively the trueness of scanning. Geometrical characteristics of ISBs also affect the implant impression accuracy, especially the bevel location and the types of designing modifications.Conclusions: The characteristics of the currently used ISBs vary widely and the available scientific evidence is not yet conclusive about the optimal design of ISB. The implant impression accuracy achieved by any of the studied parameters is encouraging. Clinical studies are however necessary for more concrete conclusions.Clinical Significance: ISBs play a vital role in the digital workflow and influence significantly the accuracy and fit of implant restorations. More clinical trials are needed in order to conclude to the optimal characteristics of ISBs which would further enhance the success of the restorations.

Dental eruption refers to the vertical displacement of a tooth from its initial non-functional towards its functional position. Tooth eruption disorders may be expressed in various clinical conditions, which may be grouped as “primary retention” and “secondary retention”. The purpose of this article is to review the literature and the clinical parameters of the various conditions related to tooth eruption disorders. Materials and Methods: The search strategy of this critical review included keywords in combination with MeSH terms in Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane Library until February 2022 and only in English. Results: “Primary Failure of Eruption” (PFE) occurs during the eruption process and includes clinical characteristics of both primary and secondary retention, which make diagnosis difficult. PFE is distinguished by Types I and II. In Type I, the defect in the eruption process occurs in all the relative teeth at the same time, whilst in Type II, the clinical expressions vary in multiple quadrants of the mouth, and the second molars erupt more. The variability of the PFE’s clinical spectrum seems to be connected to a genetic origin. The differential diagnosis among single ankylosis, secondary retention, and PFE is based on the occlusal relationship between the upper and the lower teeth distally, most commonly the first molar, which has not yet fully erupted. The treatment approach depends on many factors and combines surgical and orthodontic techniques.

Background/Objectives: To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between digital and conventional impression techniques for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs). Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases up to June 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Human clinical studies reporting PROMs between digital and conventional impression techniques for iFDPs were included. Studies using structured, but not necessarily validated, questionnaires were eligible. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Where possible, meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model to pool comparable outcomes across studies using mean differences (MD) or standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Out of 1784 records screened, eighteen studies were included. Most studies showed that digital impressions were associated with higher patient satisfaction, compared to conventional impressions. Ten studies contributed data to at least one outcome; pooled analyses included the following: overall satisfaction (k = 5), comfort (k = 7), gagging/nausea (k = 5), esthetic satisfaction (k = 2), unpleasant taste (k = 5), anxiety (k = 5), discomfort (k = 2), pain (k = 5), and overall discomfort (k = 5). Digital impressions were significantly favored (p < 0.05) for anxiety (MD = 13.3, 95% CI: −22 to −4.5), nausea (MD = −26.4, 95% CI −46.8 to −6.0), bad taste (MD = −34.8, 95% CI −58.3 to −11.3), discomfort (SMD = −2.24, 95% CI −3.51 to −0.98), comfort (SMD = 1.77, 95% CI: 0.60 to 2.94), perceived procedure time (SMD = 0.96; 95% CI 0.29 to 1.62), and overall satisfaction (SMD = 0.55; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.09). No statistically significant differences were found for pain or esthetic evaluation. Substantial between-study heterogeneity was observed among the included studies. Conclusions: Current evidence indicates that digital impression workflows enhance the overall patient experience for implant-supported fixed restorations, especially in domains linked to comfort and procedural efficiency. These findings support PROM-informed personalization of impression workflows: screening for gagging, anxiety, or intolerance to impression materials could guide patient-tailored use of intraoral scanning while acknowledging no consistent advantage for pain or esthetic perception.

Purpose: To evaluate the survival and complication rates of narrow‐diameter implants (NDIs) for treatment with fixed restorations in premolar and molar sites.Methods: A systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted following the preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Searches were performed according to a Population‐Intervention‐Outcome (PIO) format in MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library, supplemented by manual cross‐referencing. Inclusion criteria encompassed clinical studies on NDIs (<3.75 mm diameter) restored with fixed dental prostheses (FDP) in the posterior region. Random‐effect models were employed to pool survival and complication rates, and heterogeneity was assessed using the Q test and I² statistic. Subgroup analyses explored variations by jaw location, implant material, and follow‐up. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the MINORS tool for non‐randomized studies.Results: Thirty‐six trials involving 2741 NDIs were included in the systematic review and 29 in the meta‐analysis. Survival rates (SRs) ranged from 92.73% to 100% with follow‐up periods from 10.8 months to 12 years. Pooled SRs for maxillary (97.0%; 95%CI: 96.2%–97.8%) and mandibular (96.5%; 95%CI: 95.7%–97.3%) NDIs were not significantly different (p = 0.688). Comparing NDIs in the premolar and molar sites, jaw location demonstrated similar SRs of 97.5% (95% CI: 95.9%–99.1%) and 98.6% (95% CI: 96.5%–99.6%), respectively. Technical complication rates varied from 0% to 23.5%, with follow‐up periods ranging from 1 to 12 years. These complications primarily included screw loosening, fractures, and detachment of restorations. Data on biological complications were notably limited, and due to the heterogeneity in reporting, comparisons were not feasible.Conclusion: NDIs demonstrate high survival and low complication rates for therapy of the partially edentulous patient with FDPs in posterior sites. The clinical performance is consistent across jaw location and implant materials.

Objective: To compare the mechanical, chemical, and surface properties of three materials used for provisional restorations, manufactured with additive (3D‐printing), subtractive (milling), and conventional techniques.Materials and Methods: Three material groups were tested: (a) GC TempPRINT, (3D‐printed/3DP), (b) VITA CAD‐Temp, (milled/ML), and (c) Telio CS C&B, (conventional self‐cured/CC). Each group consisted of 20 beam‐shaped specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) used for a three‐point flexural strength test and 5 discs (Ø:15 mm, h: 2 mm) used for surface roughness, gloss, degree of conversion, and hardness measurements. Data were analyzed using one‐way ANOVA and Holm‐Sidak multiple comparison tests (α = 0.05).Results: The ranking of the statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) was: 3DP >CC > ML (Sdr roughness parameter), ML >CC > 3DP (gloss) and ML > 3DP> CC (gloss, degree of conversion, hardness and flexural strength).Clinical Significance: The tested materials showed statistically significant differences in all tested properties. These differences may affect their clinical performance and should be taken into consideration for their clinical application.