Next Article in Journal
Trends in Hip Arthroplasty Cementation: Insights from an Italian Registry of 142,113 Patients
Previous Article in Journal
A Customized Distribution of the Coefficient of Friction of the Porous Coating in the Short Femoral Stem Reduces Stress Shielding
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Use of a Surgical Template for the Insertion of Dental Implants and Sinus Lift with the Summers Technique Based on Digital Planning: A Case Report
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Editorial

Digital Technologies, Materials and Telemedicine in Dentistry

by
Giuseppe Minervini
1,2
1
Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai 600077, India
2
Multidisciplinary Department of Medical Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, 80138 Naples, Italy
Prosthesis 2024, 6(6), 1325-1328; https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6060095
Submission received: 25 October 2024 / Accepted: 28 October 2024 / Published: 4 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Technologies, Materials and Telemedicine in Dentistry)
As we delve into this Special Issue on prosthesis, it is evident that digital dentistry continues to revolutionize the field, offering improved precision, efficiency, and patient satisfaction. This editorial aims to provide an overview of the key findings presented in this issue, focusing on the advances in digital impression techniques, computer-guided surgeries, and the integration of CAD/CAM technologies.
One of the significant advancements highlighted is the precision of intraoral scanners (IOS) compared to conventional impression methods [1,2]. Studies have demonstrated that digital impressions, when performed correctly, offer comparable, if not superior, accuracy to traditional methods. For instance, the research by Mangano et al. [3] investigated the accuracy of digital versus conventional impressions and found that, despite notable angulation and distance errors in partially edentulous cases, digital technology still proved to be a viable option in numerous situations [4,5].
Additionally, utilizing open-source software for 3D model superimposition has demonstrated promising outcomes in enhancing workflow efficiency in dental practices [6]. This is particularly evident in the study on the Medit i500 intraoral scanner, which demonstrated high precision in full-arch scans, with deviations well within clinically acceptable limits [7]. The ability to capture detailed digital impressions quickly and accurately not only streamlines the clinical workflow but also enhances the patient experience by reducing the discomfort associated with traditional impression materials [7,8].
Computer-guided surgery has become a cornerstone in implantology, reducing intraoperative complications and enhancing the accuracy of implant placement. The integration of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) with digital planning software allows for meticulous pre-surgical planning, which is crucial for avoiding anatomical structures and ensuring optimal implant positioning [9,10,11].
A study illustrated in this issue highlights the benefits of merging digital and freehand techniques [12]. The mixed approach, combining initial digital planning with manual adjustments, was shown to increase the accuracy and predictability of implant placement, especially in challenging anatomical regions like the maxillary sinus. This hybrid approach allows clinicians to leverage the precision of digital planning while maintaining the flexibility to make intraoperative adjustments based on real-time observations and patient-specific anatomical variations [13,14]. The use of CAD/CAM technologies has significantly streamlined the prosthetic fabrication process. Digital workflows allow for precise design and manufacturing of prosthetic components, reducing the time and potential errors associated with manual techniques [15]. A study comparing the fit accuracy of CAD/CAM frameworks to traditionally manufactured ones found that digitally produced frameworks exhibited superior precision, particularly when all screws were fastened [16]. The digital production and customization of facial orthopedic devices, such as chin cups, have shown promising results in terms of patient comfort and appliance accuracy. Digital workflows, including facial scanning and 3D printing, provide a higher degree of customization, which is crucial for patient compliance and treatment efficacy [17]. The use of non-invasive 3D face scanning technology allows for the creation of prosthetic components that are tailored to the patient’s unique anatomical features, further enhancing the fit and comfort of the final product [17]. Additionally, these technologies have the potential to reduce costs and improve the overall patient experience compared to traditional analog methods.
Furthermore, the complete digital workflow, from intraoral scanning to the creation of a three-element fixed partial prosthesis, showcases how traditional concepts can be seamlessly adapted to modern technologies. This approach not only enhances the accuracy and esthetics of the final prosthetic product but also improves patient comfort and satisfaction. Integrating digital tools throughout the treatment process allows dental professionals to achieve higher precision and consistency, crucial for long-term success and patient satisfaction [18,19].
The progress in CAD/CAM technology also underscores the necessity of ongoing education and training for dental professionals. As digital tools become more sophisticated, staying updated with the latest techniques and software capabilities is essential for maximizing their benefits in clinical practice [19,20]. This ongoing professional development ensures that clinicians can effectively utilize these technologies to enhance patient care and outcomes. Patient satisfaction remains a critical factor in the adoption of digital technologies. Studies included in this issue consistently show a preference for digital impressions over conventional methods, primarily due to reduced discomfort and faster procedure times.
Nevertheless, it is important to recognize the limitations and variability in study designs that can affect outcomes. Variations in scanners, study settings, and patient demographics need to be taken into account when interpreting these results. Despite these challenges, the overall trend indicates a positive shift toward digital solutions in prosthetic dentistry [21]. Understanding patient preferences and experiences with digital technologies can assist clinicians in selecting the most appropriate tools and techniques for their practice, thus enhancing patient care and satisfaction [21,22].
Although the benefits of digital dentistry are clear, several challenges must still be addressed to fully realize its potential. One significant issue is the integration of various digital tools and systems within dental practices [18]. Achieving compatibility and smooth data transfer between various software and hardware components are crucial for establishing an efficient and effective digital workflow [23].
Furthermore, the expense of purchasing and maintaining advanced digital equipment can pose a significant challenge for many dental practices [24,25]. Investments in intraoral scanners, CAD/CAM systems, and computer-guided surgery tools require significant financial resources. As the technology becomes more prevalent and competition increases, costs are anticipated to drop, thereby becoming more affordable for a wider array of practitioners [26].
Another critical factor is the need for rigorous training and education for dental professionals. The swift progression of digital technologies demands ongoing education to stay abreast of new advancements and to ensure that clinicians can proficiently use these tools in their practice [27,28]. Dental schools and professional organizations need to prioritize integrating digital dentistry into their curricula and continuing education programs to provide practitioners with the essential skills and knowledge [29,30].
The articles in this Special Issue collectively underscore the transformative impact of digital technologies in prosthetic dentistry. The shift toward digital workflows not only enhances clinical accuracy and efficiency but also improves patient experiences. As these technologies advance, ongoing research and clinical trials will be crucial to perfect their use and unlock their full potential in dental practice. By adopting the innovations in digital dentistry and tackling the related challenges, the dental community can anticipate a future where patient care becomes more accurate, efficient, and fulfilling.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Baghani, M.; Neshati, A.; Sadafi, M.; Shidfar, S. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2023, 12, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Oh, H.S.; Lim, Y.J.; Kim, B.; Kim, M.J.; Kwon, H.B.; Baek, Y.W. Effect of scanning-aid agents on the scanning accuracy in specially designed metallic models: A laboratory study. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, 267742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mangano, F.G.; Veronesi, G.; Hauschild, U.; Mijiritsky, E.; Mangano, C. Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, 163107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Natsubori, R.; Fukazawa, S.; Chiba, T.; Tanabe, N.; Kihara, H.; Kondo, H. In vitro comparative analysis of scanning accuracy of intraoral and laboratory scanners in measuring the distance between multiple implants. Int. J. Implant. Dent. 2022, 8, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Erozan, Ç.; Ozan, O. Evaluation of the Precision of Different Intraoral Scanner-Computer Aided Design (CAD) Software Combinations in Digital Dentistry. Med. Sci. Monit. 2020, 26, e918529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Winkler, J.; Gkantidis, N. Trueness and precision of intraoral scanners in the maxillary dental arch: An in vivo analysis. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Falih, M.Y.; Majeed, M.A. Trueness and Precision of Eight Intraoral Scanners with Different Finishing Line Designs: A Comparative In Vitro Study. Eur. J. Dent. 2023, 17, 1056–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Amornvit, P.; Rokaya, D.; Sanohkan, S. Comparison of Accuracy of Current Ten Intraoral Scanners. Biomed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 2673040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bornstein, M.M.; Horner, K.; Jacobs, R. Use of cone beam computed tomography in implant dentistry: Current concepts, indications and limitations for clinical practice and research. Periodontology 2000, 73, 51–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deeb, J.G.; Reddy, N.G.; Hopfensperger, L.J.; Harris, A.L.; Bencharit, S. Same-Day Digital Dentistry Restorative Workflow for Single Immediate Provisionalization of Narrow-Diameter Implants: An Exploratory Prospective Study. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tallarico, M.; Cuccu, M.; Meloni, S.M.; Lumbau, A.I.; Baldoni, E.; Pisano, M.; Fiorillo, L.; Cervino, G. Digital Analysis of a Novel Impression Method Named the Biological-Oriented Digital Impression Technique: A Clinical Audit. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 992–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Uzunçıbuk, H.; Marrapodi, M.M.; Meto, A.; Ronsivalle, V.; Cicciù, M.; Minervini, G. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders in clear aligner patients using orthodontic intermaxillary elastics assessed with diagnostic criteria for temporomandibular disorders (DC/TMD) axis II evaluation: A cross-sectional study. J. Oral. Rehabil. 2024, 51, 500–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bayrakdar, K.; Orhan, S.; Bayrakdar, K.; Bilgir, I.S.; Ezhov, E.; Gusarev, M.; Shumilov, E. A deep learning approach for dental implant planning in cone-beam computed tomography images. BMC Med. Imaging 2021, 21, 86. [Google Scholar]
  14. Guzmán, A.M.; Deglow, E.R.; Zubizarreta-Macho, Á.; Agustín-Panadero, R.; Montero, S.H. Accuracy of Computer-Aided Dynamic Navigation Compared to Computer-Aided Static Navigation for Dental Implant Placement: An In Vitro Study. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 2123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hassan, B.; Greven, M.; Wismeijer, D. Integrating 3D facial scanning in a digital workflow to CAD/CAM design and fabricate complete dentures for immediate total mouth rehabilitation. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2017, 9, 381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mai, H.N.; Kim, J.; Choi, Y.H.; Lee, D.H. Accuracy of Portable Face-Scanning Devices for Obtaining Three-Dimensional Face Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 18, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mejia, M.L.; Pablo Gomez, J.; Moon, S.L.; Wolfe, E.M.; Perlyn, C.A.; Anthony Wolfe, S.; Steinberg, J.P. 3D Infant Orthopedic Nasal Molding System for Improved Outcomes in Cleft Nasal Deformity. FACE 2023, 4, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Joda, T.; Zarone, F.; Ferrari, M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review. BMC Oral Health 2017, 17, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Siqueira, R.; Galli, M.; Chen, Z.; Mendonça, G.; Meirelles, L.; Wang, H.L. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 6517–6548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Joda, T.; Zitzmann, N.U. Personalized workflows in reconstructive dentistry-current possibilities and future opportunities. Clin. Oral Investig. 2022, 26, 4283–4290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yuzbasioglu, E.; Kurt, H.; Turunc, R.; Bilir, H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zitzmann, N.U.; Matthisson, L.; Ohla, H.; Joda, T. Digital Undergraduate Education in Dentistry: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Pillai, S.; Upadhyay, A.; Khayambashi, P.; Farooq, I.; Sabri, H.; Tarar, M.; Lee, K.T.; Harb, I.; Zhou, S.; Wang, Y.; et al. Dental 3D-Printing: Transferring Art from the Laboratories to the Clinics. Polymers 2021, 4, 157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Alauddin, M.S.; Baharuddin, A.S.; Mohd Ghazali, M.I. The Modern and Digital Transformation of Oral Health Care: A Mini Review. Healthcare 2021, 25, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Sulaiman, T.A. Materials in digital dentistry-A review. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2020, 32, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Richert, R.; Goujat, A.; Venet, L.; Viguie, G.; Viennot, S.; Robinson, P. Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression. J. Healthc. Eng. 2017, 2017, 8427595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Afshari, F.S.; Sukotjo, C.; Alfaro, M.F.; Mccombs, J.; Campbell, S.D.; Knoernschild, K.L. Integration of Digital Dentistry into a Predoctoral Implant Program: Program Description, Rationale, and Utilization Trends. J. Dent. Educ. 2017, 81, 986–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Khurshid, Z. Digital Dentistry: Transformation of Oral Health and Dental Education with Technology. Eur. J. Dent. 2023, 17, 943–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zoidis, P.; Motlagh, N.; Tarte, S.; Vaughan, C.; Phu, L.; Vandewater, L. Dental students’ perspectives on three intraoral scanners and CAD/CAM systems before and after a pre-clinical elective course in digital dentistry. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2022, 14, 803–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Maragha, T.; Chehroudi, B. Assessment of the students’ performance and support needs in a novel digital carving exercise. J. Dent. Educ. 2024, 88, 614–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Minervini, G. Digital Technologies, Materials and Telemedicine in Dentistry. Prosthesis 2024, 6, 1325-1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6060095

AMA Style

Minervini G. Digital Technologies, Materials and Telemedicine in Dentistry. Prosthesis. 2024; 6(6):1325-1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6060095

Chicago/Turabian Style

Minervini, Giuseppe. 2024. "Digital Technologies, Materials and Telemedicine in Dentistry" Prosthesis 6, no. 6: 1325-1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6060095

APA Style

Minervini, G. (2024). Digital Technologies, Materials and Telemedicine in Dentistry. Prosthesis, 6(6), 1325-1328. https://doi.org/10.3390/prosthesis6060095

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop