What does complete digital workflow mean for dentistry?

Year 2021, Volume: 38 Issue: 3s, 175 - 179, 09.05.2021

Necati Kaleli , Çağrı Ural

Abstract

The introduction of computer-aided manufacturing technologies and further developments have changed the routine workflow in dentistry, and dentists are now rapidly shifting from conventional to digital. As a result, intra-oral scanners have become a standard device in dental clinics even though they have a considerable cost. One of the important reasons of this digital transition is to ensure standardized-quality manufacturing with a shorter chair time, which is promised by complete digital workflow. So, what does complete digital workflow mean for dentistry? This review elaborately answers to this question and summarizes the stages of complete digital workflow in dental applications.

Keywords

digital dentistry, computer-aided manufacturing, complete digital workflow

References

• Ahlholm, P., Sipilä, K., Vallittu, P., Jakonen, M., Kotiranta, U., 2018. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J. Prosthodont. 27, 35-41.
• Alghazzawi, T.F., 2016. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J. Prosthodont. Res. 60, 72-84.
• Arısan, V., Karabuda, C.Z., Özdemir, T., 2010a. Implant surgery using bone‐and mucosa‐supported stereolithographic guides in totally edentulous jaws: surgical and post‐operative outcomes of computer‐aided vs. standard techniques. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 21, 980-988.
• Arısan, V., Karabuda, Z.C., Özdemir, T., 2010b. Accuracy of two stereolithographic guide systems for computer‐aided implant placement: a computed tomography‐based clinical comparative study. J. Periodontol. 81, 43-51.
• Block, M.S., Emery, R.W., 2016. Static or dynamic navigation for implant placement—choosing the method of guidance. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 74, 269-277.
• Buser, D., Martin, W., Belser, U.C., 2004. Optimizing esthetics for implant restorations in the anterior maxilla: anatomic and surgical considerations. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 19, 43-61.
• Coachman, C., Calamita, M.A., Coachman, F.G., Coachman, R.G., Sesma, N., 2017. Facially generated and cephalometric guided 3D digital design for complete mouth implant rehabilitation: a clinical report. J. Prosthet. Dent. 117, 577-586.
• D'haese, J., Ackhurst, J., Wismeijer, D., De Bruyn, H., Tahmaseb, A., 2017. Current state of the art of computer‐guided implant surgery. Periodontol. 2000. 73, 121-133.
• De Angelis, P., Passarelli, P.C., Gasparini, G., Boniello, R., D'amato, G., De Angelis, S., 2020. Monolithic CAD-CAM lithium disilicate versus monolithic CAD-CAM zirconia for single implant-supported posterior crowns using a digital workflow: A 3-year cross-sectional retrospective study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 123, 252-256.
• Dörner, K., Edelman, D., 2015. What ‘digital’really means. McKinsey Digital. Dostępny w Internecie: https://www. mckinsey. com/industries/high-tech/our-insights/what-digital-really-means.
• Ender, A., Attin, T., Mehl, A., 2016a. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J. Prosthet. Dent. 115, 313-320.
• Ender, A., Mehl, A., 2013. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 16, 11-21.
• Ender, A., Mehl, A., 2015. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence. Int. 46, 9-17.
• Ender, A., Zimmermann, M., Attin, T., Mehl, A., 2016b. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin. Oral. Investig. 20, 1495-1504.
• Ender, A., Zimmermann, M., Mehl, A., 2019. Accuracy of complete-and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 22, 11-19.
• Esposito, M., Ekestubbe, A., Gröndahl, K., 1993. Radiological evaluation of marginal bone loss at tooth surfaces facing single Brånemark implants. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 4, 151-157.
• Fasbinder, D.J., 2006. Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM restorations. The J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 137, 22S-31S.
• Fasbinder, D.J., 2013. Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent. 26, 115-120.
• Giménez, B., Özcan, M., Martínez‐Rus, F., Pradíes, G., 2015. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 17, e54-e64 . Gimenez‐Gonzalez, B., Hassan, B., Özcan, M., Pradíes, G., 2017. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J. Prosthodont. 26, 650-655.
• Grunder, U., Gracis, S., Capelli, M., 2005. Influence of the 3-D bone-to-implant relationship on esthetics. Int. J. Periodontics. Restorative. Dent. 25, 113-119.
• Haddadi, Y., Bahrami, G., Isidor, F., 2018. Effect of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device. Int. J. Prosthodont. 31, 375-376.
• Joda, T., Brägger, U., 2015. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 26, 1430-1435.
• Joda, T., Brägger, U., 2016. Time‐efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 27, 1401-1406.
• Joda, T., Derksen, W., Wittneben, J.G., Kuehl, S., 2018. Static computer‐aided implant surgery (s‐CAIS) analysing patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), economics and surgical complications: A systematic review. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 29, 359-373.
• Joda, T., Ferrari, M., Brägger, U., 2017a. Monolithic implant‐supported lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns in a complete digital workflow: A prospective clinical trial with a 2‐year follow‐up. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 19, 505-511.
• Joda, T., Lenherr, P., Dedem, P., Kovaltschuk, I., Bragger, U., Zitzmann, N.U., 2017b. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 28, 1318-1323.
• Joda, T., Zarone, F., Ferrari, M., 2017c. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC. Oral. Health. 17, 124.
• Katsoulis, J., Pazera, P., Mericske‐Stern, R., 2009. Prosthetically driven, computer‐guided implant planning for the edentulous maxilla: a model study. Clin. Implant. Dent. Relat. Res. 11, 238-245.
• Mangano, F., Gandolfi, A., Luongo, G., Logozzo, S., 2017. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC. Oral. Health. 17, 149. Margvelashvili-Malament, M., Att, W., 2019. Current workflows for computer-aided implant surgery: a review article. Curr. Oral. Health. Rep. 6, 295-305.
• Miyazaki, T., Hotta, Y., 2011. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Aust. Dent. J. 56, 97-106.
• Mizumoto, R.M., Yilmaz, B., 2018. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 120, 343-352.
• Mühlemann, S., Kraus, R.D., Hämmerle, C.H., Thoma, D.S., 2018. Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant‐supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 29, 184-195.
• Patzelt, S.B., Emmanouilidi, A., Stampf, S., Strub, J.R., Att, W., 2014a. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin. Oral. Investig.. 18, 1687-1694.
• Patzelt, S.B., Lamprinos, C., Stampf, S., Att, W., 2014b. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am. Dent. Assoc. 145, 542-551.
• Patzelt, S.B., Vonau, S., Stampf, S., Att, W., 2013. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws J Am. Dent. Assoc. 144, 914-920.
• Rekow, E.D., 2020. Digital dentistry: The new state of the art—Is it disruptive or destructive? Dent. Mater. 36, 9-24.
• Sailer, I., Mühlemann, S., Fehmer, V., Hämmerle, C.H., Benic, G.I., 2019. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. J. Prosthet. Dent. 121, 69-75.
• Selz, C.F., Vuck, A., Guess, P.C., 2016. Full-mouth rehabilitation with monolithic CAD/CAM-fabricated hybrid and all-ceramic materials: A case report and 3-year follow up. Quintessence. Int. 47, 115-121.
• Stapleton, B.M., Lin, W.S., Ntounis, A., Harris, B.T., Morton, D., 2014. Application of digital diagnostic impression, virtual planning, and computer-guided implant surgery for a CAD/CAM-fabricated, implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis: a clinical report. J. Prosthet. Dent. 112, 402-408.
• Tahmaseb, A., Wu, V., Wismeijer, D., Coucke, W., Evans, C., 2018. The accuracy of static computer‐aided implant surgery: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Clin. Oral. Implants. Res. 29, 416-435.
• Tapiea, L., Lebonb, N., Mawussic, B., Chabouisd, H.F., Durete, F., Attalf, J., 2015. Understanding dental CAD/CAM for restorations–the digital workflow from a mechanical engineering viewpoint. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 18, 21-44.
• Tarnow, D., Cho, S., Wallace, S., 2000. The effect of inter‐implant distance on the height of inter‐implant bone crest. J. Periodontol. 71, 546-549. Ting‐Shu, S., Jian, S., 2015. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J. Prosthodont. 24, 313-321.
• Van Noort, R., 2012. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent. Mater. 28, 3-12.
• Widmann, G., Bale, R.J., 2006. Accuracy in computer-aided implant surgery--a review. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implants. 21, 305-313.
• Yuzbasioglu, E., Kurt, H., Turunc, R., Bilir, H., 2014. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC. Oral. Health. 14, 10.