Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Multi-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: An Empty Review

Q3 Dentistry
Ali Mahmoud Hashemi, Mahya Hasanzadeh, Ameen Khraisat, M. Alikhasi
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Multi-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: An Empty Review","authors":"Ali Mahmoud Hashemi, Mahya Hasanzadeh, Ameen Khraisat, M. Alikhasi","doi":"10.18502/fid.v21i20.15714","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: This study aimed to do a comprehensive systematic review on the comparison of digital and conventional workflows regarding prosthetic outcomes, accuracy of implant impressions, framework passivity and fit, and clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations. \nMaterials and Methods: The EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up until April 2020. \nResults: No in-vivo article was found to compare full digital and conventional workflows regarding the accuracy of implant impressions, passivity and fit of frameworks, and prosthetic outcomes. There was no study to investigate full digital and conventional workflows for clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations. \nConclusion: This empty review highlights the need for further research to compare full digital and conventional workflows for implant-supported restorations.","PeriodicalId":12445,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dentistry","volume":"7 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v21i20.15714","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to do a comprehensive systematic review on the comparison of digital and conventional workflows regarding prosthetic outcomes, accuracy of implant impressions, framework passivity and fit, and clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations. Materials and Methods: The EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up until April 2020. Results: No in-vivo article was found to compare full digital and conventional workflows regarding the accuracy of implant impressions, passivity and fit of frameworks, and prosthetic outcomes. There was no study to investigate full digital and conventional workflows for clinical fabrication of multi-unit implant-supported fixed restorations. Conclusion: This empty review highlights the need for further research to compare full digital and conventional workflows for implant-supported restorations.
多单位种植体支持固定修复体制作的数字化和传统工作流程比较评估:空回顾
研究目的本研究旨在对数字化和传统工作流程在修复效果、种植体印模准确性、骨架钝性和密合性以及多单位种植体支持固定修复体的临床制作等方面的比较进行全面的系统回顾。材料与方法:在 EMBASE、PubMed、Scopus 和 Cochrane Library 数据库中搜索截至 2020 年 4 月发表的相关文章。结果:没有发现一篇体内文章对全数字化工作流程和传统工作流程在种植体印模的准确性、骨架的被动性和密合性以及修复效果方面进行比较。在多单位种植体支持固定修复体的临床制作方面,没有研究对全数字化和传统工作流程进行调查。结论:这篇空洞的综述强调了对种植体支持修复的全数字化和传统工作流程进行比较的进一步研究的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Dentistry
Frontiers in Dentistry Dentistry-General Dentistry
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信