Digital v confentional impressions for implant supported fixed prosthesis, extraction v non-extraction orthodontics and flap v flappless surgery for implant placement were popular blogs between October and December.
[read the full story...]
This review comparing digital scans and conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses included 6 RCTs. The findings suggest that digital scans significantly reduce the the time required compared with conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported prostheses. However, there are only a small number of small studies available with only one of the six included being at low risk of bias.
[read the full story...]
This review comparing patient-related outcomes of intraoral scanning and conventional impression methods included 13 studies. Nine of the included studies were RCTs and all were considered to be at unclear risk of bias. The findings indicated a patient preference for digital scanning over conventional impression techniques.
[read the full story...]
In his debut blog, Luke Bayliss explores a Delphi study that will help mental health practitioners to converse with young people about their online activities and impact on mental health.
[read the full story...]
Thibault Colloc takes a look at this review comparing digital and conventional workflows for the placement of single crowns on dental implants. Ten studies were included involving 214 patients and 278 crowns.
[read the full story...]
Between January and April 2018 our most popular blogs considered restorations in primary teeth,digital impressions, root canal irrigants and fissure sealants.
[read the full story...]
In his debut blog Kenny Strain considers a new review which compares the working times for digital versus conventional impressions as well as patient centered outcomes. The review suggest a patient preference for the digital approach.
[read the full story...]
This review of Intraoral digital impressions suggest they provide similar accuracy to conventional elastomeric impressions. However only 2 of the 11 studies included are clinical and these are both small, so the results should be interpreted cautiously.
[read the full story...]
