Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation No. 3, 2017

F u l l y d i g i t a l w o r k f l o w References 1. Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Canullo L, Xhanari E, Polizzi G. Guided surgery for single-implant placement: a critical review. → J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2016 Dec;2(4):8–14. 2. Polizzi G, Cantoni T, Pasini E, Tallarico M. Immediate loading of variable-thread expanding tapered-body implants placed into maxillary post-extraction or healed sites using a guided surgery approach: an up-to-five year retrospective analysis. → J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2016 Sep;2(3):50–60. 3. Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Canullo L, Caneva M, Polizzi G. Five-year results of a randomized controlled trial comparing patients rehabilitated with immediately loaded maxillary cross-arch fixed dental prosthesis supported by four or six implants placed using guided surgery. → Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Oct;18(5):965–72. 4. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Marchetti M, Scarfo B, Esposito M. Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loa- ding results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. → Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Autumn;7(3):229–42. 5. Vermeulen J. The accuracy of implant placement by experienced surgeons: guided vs freehand approach in a simulated plastic model. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017 Mar-Apr;32(3):617–24. 6. Van Steenberghe D, Glauser R, Blomback U, Andersson M, Schutyser F, Pettersson A, Wendelhag I. Computed tomographic scan-derived customized surgical template and fixed prosthesis for flapless surgery and immediate loading of implants in fully edentulous maxillae: a prospective multicentre study. → Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005;7 Suppl 1:S111–20. 7. Jemt T, Hjalmarsson L. In vitro measure- ments of precision of fit of implant-sup- ported frameworks: a comparison between “virtual” and “physical” assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. → Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 May;14 Suppl 1:e175–82. 8. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Mangani F, Barlattani A. Different implant impression techniques for edentulous patients treated with CAD/ CAM complete-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled trial reporting data at 3 year post-loading. → Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013 Winter;6(4):325–40. 9. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug;29(4):836–45. 10. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Dec 31. doi:10.1111/clr.12994. [Epub ahead of print]. 11. Kattadiyil MT, Mursic Z, AlRumaih H, Goodacre CJ. Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental prosthesis fabrication. → J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):444–8. 12. Wu J, Li Y, Zhang Y. Use of intraoral scanning and 3-dimensional printing in the fabrication of a removable partial denture for a patient with limited mouth opening. → J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 May;148(5):338–41. 13. Fang JH, An X, Jeong SM, Choi BH. Development of complete dentures based on digital intraoral impressions—case report. → J Prosthodont Res. 2017 Jun 15. pii: S1883-1958(17)30049-X. doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2017.05.005. [Epub ahead of print]. 14. Tallarico M, Meloni SM. Open-cohort prospective study on early implant failure and physiological marginal remodeling expected using sandblasted and acid-etched bone level implants featuring an 11° Morse taper connection within one year after loading. → J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Mar;3(1):68–79. 24. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Oct;25(10):1113–8. 25. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. → Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Sep 5. doi:10.1111/clr.12982. [Epub ahead of print]. 26. Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G. Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. → J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Sep;116(3):328–35.e2. 27. Almeidae e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araújo É, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, Güth JF. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. → Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):515–23. 28. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. → Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep;20(7):1495–504. 29. Lin WS, Chou JC, Metz MJ, Harris BT, Morton D. Use of intraoral digital scanning for a CAD/CAM-fabricated milled bar and superstructure framework for an implant-supported, removable complete dental prosthesis. → J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jun;113(6):509–15. 30. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Moy PK. Four-implant overdenture fully supported by a CAD-CAM titanium bar: A single cohort prospective 1-year preliminary study. → J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Oct;116(4):516–23. 15. Tallarico M, Xhanari E, Kadiu B, Scrascia R. Implant rehabilitation of extremely atrophic mandibles (Cawood and Howell Class VI) with a fixed-removable solution supported by four implants: one-year results from a preliminary prospective case series study. → J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Jun;3(1):32–40. 16. Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun;25(3):506–15. 17. Eisenmann E, Mokabberi A, Walter MH, Freesmeyer WB. Improving the fit of implant-supported superstructures using the spark erosion technique. → Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Nov-Dec;19(6):810–8. 18. Jabero M, Sarment DP. Advanced surgical guidance technology: a review. → Implant Dent. 2006 Jun;15(2):135–42. 19. Loubele M, Bogaerts R, Van Dijck E, Pauwels R, Vanheusden S, Suetens P, Marchal G, Sanderink G, Jacobs R. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scanners for dentomaxillofacial applications. → Eur J Radiol. 2009 Sep;71(3):461–8. 20. Niu T, Zhu L. Overview of x-ray scatter in cone-beam computed tomography and its correction methods. → Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2010;6(2):82–9. 21. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. → BMC Oral Health. 2017 Jun 2;17(1):92. doi:10.1186/ s12903-017-0383-4. 22. Mangano FG, 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 Sep 29;11(9):e0163107. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0163107. 23. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review and meta-analysis. → J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Aug;116(2):184–90.e12. 46 Volume 3 | Issue 3/2017 Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation

Pages Overview