Ali Mahmoud Hashemi, Mahya Hasanzadeh, Ameen Khraisat, M. Alikhasi
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Comparative Evaluation of Digital and Conventional Workflows for the Fabrication of Multi-Unit Implant-Supported Fixed Restorations: An Empty Review
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.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
