ReviewBMC oral health2021
The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.
Review in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of different fabrication workflows on the passive fit of screw-retained bar splinting two interforaminal implants: a parallel blinded randomised clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Auxiliary occlusal devices for IO scanning in a complete digital workflow of implant-supported crowns: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Influence of arch form on the accuracy of digital workflow in all-on-four implant rehabilitation cases (an in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Feasibility of the Impression Reference (IR) Technique for Open-Flap Immediate Loading Full-Arch Rehabilitation of the Atrophic Maxilla: A Case Series.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Manufacture accuracy and geometric discrepancy of direct laser sintering versus cast cobalt chromium bars in mandibular implant retained overdenture: an in-vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Titanium Base-Free Multi-Unit Abutment Connections: A Critical Review of Prosthetic Screw Design, Biomechanical Behavior, and Clinical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- PEEK Intraoral Scan Bodies-A Scoping Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Accuracy of digital interocclusal records at various protrusive mandibular positions: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Conventional and Digital Workflow Impressions for Implant-Supported Restorations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Accuracy of digitally designed endodontic posts: a micro-computed tomography analysis of intraoral scanner and extraoral scanning techniques.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of a modified scanning technique on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scanning: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Impact of Scannable Healing Abutment Type on the Accuracy of Implant Impression.BioMed research international · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Digital Imaging Accuracy Among Three Intraoral Scanners for Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Awareness and Utilization of Artificial Intelligence in Smile Design and Prosthetic Planning: A Cross-Sectional Survey among Dental Professionals.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Enhancing Intraoral Scanning Accuracy: From the Influencing Factors to a Procedural Guideline.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- The Effect of Angulation and Scan Body Position on Scans for Implant-Treated Edentulism: A Clinical Simulation Study.Clinical implant dentistry and related research · 2025Article
- Differences between laboratory scanner and intra-oral scanner regarding axes and distances of three implants in a curved line when using two types of intra-oral scan bodies: in vitro study.International journal of implant dentistry · 2025Article
- Prosthetic Soft Tissue Management in Esthetic Implant Restorations, Part II: Post-surgical Considerations and Impression Techniques. A Narrative Review.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced through a direct digital workflow were reported.
methodsA MEDLINE (Pubmed) search of the relevant English-language literature spanning from January 1st 2015 until March 31st 2020 was conducted. In vitro studies comparing digital implant impression accuracy by different IOS devices or in vitro studies examining differences in accuracy between digital and conventional impression procedures were included. Also, RCTs, clinical trials and case series on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, manufactured completely digitally were included. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting on restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow, case reports and non-English language articles were excluded. The aim was to investigate the accuracy of IOS for single and multiple fixed implant restorations compared to the conventional impression methods and report on the variables that influence it. Finally, this study aimed to report on the survival and success of fixed implant-retained restorations fabricated using the direct digital workflow.
resultsFor the single and short-span implant sites, IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression was identified. Moreover, complete-arch IOS impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. Factors related to scanbody design as well as scanner generation, scanning range and interimplant distance were found to influence complete-arch scanning accuracy. Single implant-retained monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates and minor complications for short to medium follow-up periods.
conclusionsThe vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Nevertheless, intraoral scanning exhibited high accuracy both for single and multiple implant restorations. Available literature on single-implant monolithic restorations manufactured through a complete digital workflow shows promising results for a follow-up of 3-5 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.