English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Objectives To compare short-term outcomes after immediate restoration of a single implant in the esthetic zone with one-abutment one-time technique comparing a conventional (control) vs. a fully digital workflow (test). Materials and methods Eighteen subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups, and a digital implant planning was performed for all. In the test group, a custom-made zirconia abutment and a CAD–CAM provisional crown were prepared prior to surgery; implants were placed using a s-CAIS guide allowing immediate restoration after surgery. In the control group, the implant was placed free-handed using a conventional surgical guide, and a custom-made zirconia abutment to support a stratified provisional crown was placed 10 days thereafter, based on a conventional impression. Implant accuracy (relative to the planning), the provisional restoration outcomes, as well as PROMs were assessed. Results The implant positioning showed higher accuracy with the s-CAIS surgical guide compared to free-handed surgery (angular deviation (AD): 2.41 ± 1.27° vs. 6.26 ± 3.98°,  p  &lt; 0.014; entry point deviation (CGD): 0.65 ± 0.37 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.83 mm,  p  &lt; 0.059; apical deviation (GAD): 1.36 ± 0.53 mm vs. 2.42 ± 1.02 mm,  p  &lt; 0.014). The occlusion and interproximal contacts showed similar results for the two workflows ( p  = 0.7 and  p  = 0.69, respectively). The PROMs results were similar in both groups except for impression taking with intra-oral scanning preferred over conventional impressions ( p  = 0.014). Conclusions Both workflows allowed implant placement and immediate/early restoration and displayed similar clinical and esthetic outcomes. The fully digital workflow was associated with a more accurate implant position relative to planning. Clinical relevance Our results show that both conventional and digital workflow are predictive and provide similar clinical outcomes, with extra precision provided by digitalisation.

Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial