Digital Workflow in Implant Dentistry
- 226 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Implant dentistry is going through a digital revolution. Through the development of new equipment and their corresponding workflows, the diagnosis and treatment of our patients are becoming simpler and more efficient. This review examines the workflows and techniques that apply digital technology to the pre-operative planning stages, the surgical placement, and the prosthetic phases of implant treatment.
With the current influx of new hardware and software into the market, dental technology has the potential to infiltrate every area of clinical implant dentistry. Its use generally begins with the diagnostic scanning by means of an intra-oral scanner and cone beam computed tomography. These modalities, in conjunction with implant planning software, allow for the planning and the guided surgical execution of dental implants. Technology can further be used with the prosthetic design and manufacturing of the interim and final restorations of the implants allowing all areas of clinical diagnosis and care to have the opportunity to apply digital dentistry. These tools can allow for more predictable, profitable, and pleasant treatment for our patients.
As our clinical landscape changes with the influx of digital tools, the uses, workflows, and clinical protocols associated with implant dentistry can be learned and applied in our daily clinical practice allowing for the streamlining and simplification of patient care.
KeywordsDental implants Intra-oral scanning Implant planning software CADCAM manufacturing
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Mark Ludlow was a lecturer for DentsplySirona, Planmeca, and Nobel Biocare, outside of the submitted work.
Walter Renne declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.•• Hack G, Patzelt S. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intra-oral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation. JADA. 2015;10:1–5. A good overview of current intraoral scanners and their accuracy Google Scholar
- 3.• Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of seven digital scanners: an in-vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisions. J Pros Dent 2016 JPD-D-16-00503R5. A comparison paper examining scanning accuracy and efficiency with multiple digital scanners in both quadrant and full arch scans.Google Scholar
- 8.•• Arisan V, Karabuda C, Mumcu E, Ozdemir T. Implant positioning errors in freehand and computer-aided placement methods: a single-blind clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Max Implants. 2013;28:190–204. This paper compares the positional errors that occur during free-handed versus guided implant placement. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann N. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Impl Res 2016 1–6.Google Scholar
- 15.Joda T, Bragger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2015 1–5.Google Scholar
- 18.•• Joda T, Katsoulis J, Bragger U. Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clin Impl Dent Relat Res 2015 1–9. This manuscript quantifies the efficiency of the digital process compared to analog restoration fabrication.Google Scholar