1. Clinical efficiency and patient preference of digital and conventional workflow for single implant crowns using immediate and regular digital impression: A meta‐analysis
- Author
-
Dalva Cruz Laganá, Newton Sesma, Nathalia R. Cunha de Oliveira, and Mônica Nogueira Pigozzo
- Subjects
Dental Impression Technique ,Crowns ,business.industry ,Single implant ,0206 medical engineering ,Time efficiency ,Dentistry ,Patient Preference ,030206 dentistry ,02 engineering and technology ,Random effects model ,020601 biomedical engineering ,Patient preference ,Workflow ,Impression ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Dental Prosthesis Design ,Meta-analysis ,Computer-Aided Design ,Humans ,Medicine ,Oral Surgery ,business - Abstract
Objective To assess whether digital workflow gives better results than the conventional one in the single implant crowns, when analyzing the impression time, patient preference, time efficiency, and adjustment time. Material and methods MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were searched and supplemented via hand search up to June 19, 2019. Only clinical trials assessing conventional versus digital workflows for single implant crowns were included. Impression time was evaluated using random effects meta-analysis, while patient preference, adjustment time, and time efficiency were reported descriptively. Results Among 1,334 publications identified, ten studies were included. The random effects models revealed statistically significant reduction in time in the digital impression group when compared to the conventional group by the mean meta-analysis (MD: 8.22 [95% CI: 5.48, 10.96]). Analysis from immediate digital impression versus conventional (MD: 3.84 [95% CI: 3.30, 4.39]) and regular digital impression versus conventional (MD:10.67 [95% CI: 5.70, 15.65]) showed statistically significant reduction in time on using the digital impression. Impression time in the digital process ranged between 6 min 39 s and 20 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 11.7 and 28.47 min. Patients showed greater preference for digital impression. Adjustment time in the digital process ranged between 1.96 and 14 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 3.02 and 12 min. Time efficiency in the digital process ranged between 36.8 and 185.4 min, whereas for conventional, it was between 55.6 and 332 min. Conclusion The digital workflow has demonstrated better clinical efficiency considering impression time, patient preference, and time efficiency. According to the adjustment time, different results were presented.
- Published
- 2020
- Full Text
- View/download PDF