Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35129763›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of implant dentistry2022

Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial.

Brieuc Hanozin, Lou Li Manni, Geoffrey Lecloux, Miljana Bacevic, France Lambert

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of implant dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Accuracy of Three Different Strategies for Virtual Interocclusal Registration: An In Vitro Study.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  4. Impact of scanning errors on the trueness of digital implant impressions.International journal of implant dentistry · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Beyond Accuracy: Clinical Outcomes of Computer Assisted Implant Surgery.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Classification and treatment of food impaction.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Brieuc HanozinDepartment of Periodontology, Oral and Implant Surgery, University Hospital of Liège, Domaine du Sart Tilman Bat B-35, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
Lou Li ManniDepartment of Periodontology, Oral and Implant Surgery, University Hospital of Liège, Domaine du Sart Tilman Bat B-35, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
Geoffrey LeclouxDepartment of Periodontology, Oral and Implant Surgery, University Hospital of Liège, Domaine du Sart Tilman Bat B-35, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
Miljana BacevicDepartment of Periodontology, Oral and Implant Surgery, University Hospital of Liège, Domaine du Sart Tilman Bat B-35, 4000, Liège, Belgium. miljana.bacevic@chuliege.be.ORCID 0000-0001-9024-0005
France LambertDepartment of Periodontology, Oral and Implant Surgery, University Hospital of Liège, Domaine du Sart Tilman Bat B-35, 4000, Liège, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare short-term outcomes after immediate restoration of a single implant in the esthetic zone with one-abutment one-time technique comparing a conventional (control) vs. a fully digital workflow (test). MATERIALS AND

methodsEighteen subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups, and a digital implant planning was performed for all. In the test group, a custom-made zirconia abutment and a CAD-CAM provisional crown were prepared prior to surgery; implants were placed using a s-CAIS guide allowing immediate restoration after surgery. In the control group, the implant was placed free-handed using a conventional surgical guide, and a custom-made zirconia abutment to support a stratified provisional crown was placed 10 days thereafter, based on a conventional impression. Implant accuracy (relative to the planning), the provisional restoration outcomes, as well as PROMs were assessed.

resultsThe implant positioning showed higher accuracy with the s-CAIS surgical guide compared to free-handed surgery (angular deviation (AD): 2.41 ± 1.27° vs. 6.26 ± 3.98°, p < 0.014; entry point deviation (CGD): 0.65 ± 0.37 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.83 mm, p < 0.059; apical deviation (GAD): 1.36 ± 0.53 mm vs. 2.42 ± 1.02 mm, p < 0.014). The occlusion and interproximal contacts showed similar results for the two workflows (p = 0.7 and p = 0.69, respectively). The PROMs results were similar in both groups except for impression taking with intra-oral scanning preferred over conventional impressions (p = 0.014).

conclusionsBoth workflows allowed implant placement and immediate/early restoration and displayed similar clinical and esthetic outcomes. The fully digital workflow was associated with a more accurate implant position relative to planning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results show that both conventional and digital workflow are predictive and provide similar clinical outcomes, with extra precision provided by digitalisation.

Indexed as

Esthetics, DentalSpecialties, SurgicalComputer-Aided DesignDental OcclusionHumansWorkflowCustom-made abutmentFully digital workflowOne-abutment one-timePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)s-CAIS surgeryWhite esthetic score (WES)

Identifiers

PMID35129763
PMCPMC8821739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.