Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies

D. Wismeijer; T. Joda; T. Flügge; G. Fokas; A. Tahmaseb; D. Bechelli; L. Bohner; M. Bornstein; A. Burgoyne; S. Caram; R. Carmichael; C.Y. Chen; W. Coucke; W. Derksen; N. Donos; K. El Kholy; C. Evans; V. Fehmer; S. Fickl; G. Fragola; B. Gimenez Gonzales; H. Gholami; D. Hashim; Y. Hui; A. Kökat; K. Vazouras; S. Kühl; A. Lanis; R. Leesungbok; J. van der Meer; Z. Liu; T. Sato; A. De Souza; W.C. Scarfe; M. Tosta; P. van Zyl; K. Vach; V. Vaughn; M. Vucetic; P. Wang; B. Wen; V. Wu

doi:10.1111/clr.13309

Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies

D. Wismeijer, T. Joda, T. Flügge, G. Fokas, A. Tahmaseb, D. Bechelli, L. Bohner, M. Bornstein, A. Burgoyne, S. Caram, R. Carmichael, C.Y. Chen, W. Coucke, W. Derksen, N. Donos, K. El Kholy, C. Evans, V. Fehmer, S. Fickl, G. FragolaB. Gimenez Gonzales, H. Gholami, D. Hashim, Y. Hui, A. Kökat, K. Vazouras, S. Kühl, A. Lanis, R. Leesungbok, J. van der Meer, Z. Liu, T. Sato, A. De Souza, W.C. Scarfe, M. Tosta, P. van Zyl, K. Vach, V. Vaughn, M. Vucetic, P. Wang, B. Wen, V. Wu

Oral Implantology

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Review article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Objectives: Working Group 5 was assigned the task to review the current knowledge in the area of digital technologies. Focused questions on accuracy of linear measurements when using CBCT, digital vs. conventional implant planning, using digital vs. conventional impressions and assessing the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and patient-related outcome measurements when using s-CAIS were addressed. Materials and methods: The literature was systematically searched, and in total, 232 articles were selected and critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. Four systematic reviews were produced in the four subject areas and amply discussed in the group. After emendation, they were presented to the plenary where after further modification, they were accepted. Results: Static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), in terms of pain & discomfort, economics and intraoperative complications, is beneficial compared with conventional implant surgery. When using s-CAIS in partially edentulous cases, a higher level of accuracy can be achieved when compared to fully edentulous cases. When using an intraoral scanner in edentulous cases, the results are dependent on the protocol that has been followed. The accuracy of measurements on CBCT scans is software dependent. Conclusions: Because the precision intraoral scans and of measurements on CBCT scans and is not high enough to allow for the required accuracy, s-CAIS should be considered as an additional tool for comprehensive diagnosis, treatment planning, and surgical procedures. Flapless s-CAIS can lead to implant placement outside of the zone of keratinized mucosa and thus must be executed with utmost care.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	436-442
Journal	Clinical Oral Implants Research
Volume	29
Issue number	S16
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13309
Publication status	Published - 2018

Bibliographical note

In special issue: Proceedings of the Sixth ITI Consensus Conference.

Funding

2Department of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland 3Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany 4Department Implant Dentistry, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 5University of Rosario, Buenos Aires, Argentina 6University of São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil 7Private Practice, Kitchener, Ontario , Canada 8Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Mendoza, Argentina 9University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada 10Private Practice, Rancho Cucamonga, California, USA 11University of Liege, Liege, Belgium 12Queen Mary University of London, London, UK 13Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 14Private Practice, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 15University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland 16Private Practice, Wurzburg, Germany 17Private Practice, Cáceres, Spain 18Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 19Department of Oral Surgery, School of Dental Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia 20Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey 21Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts 22University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland 23San Sebastian University, Santiago, Chile 24Kyung Hee University Dental School Hospital, Seoul, South Korea 25University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands 26School of Stomatology, Binzhou Medical University, Binzhou, China This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. © 2018 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Funders	Funder number
4Department
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License
University of Freiburg
Universität Bern
Queen Mary University of London
University of Hong Kong
Binzhou Medical University
Hanzehogeschool Groningen

Access to Document

10.1111/clr.13309Licence: CC BY-NC

https://hdl.handle.net/11245.1/89b3d11e-b091-47a4-935e-669b9b55bd43

Persistent URL (handle)

Copy link address

Cite this

Wismeijer, D., Joda, T., Flügge, T., Fokas, G., Tahmaseb, A., Bechelli, D., Bohner, L., Bornstein, M., Burgoyne, A., Caram, S., Carmichael, R., Chen, C. Y., Coucke, W., Derksen, W., Donos, N., El Kholy, K., Evans, C., Fehmer, V., Fickl, S., ... Wu, V. (2018). Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 29(S16), 436-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13309

@article{4d6795e048d34686b72d5beeb114cf5d,

title = "Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies",

abstract = "Objectives: Working Group 5 was assigned the task to review the current knowledge in the area of digital technologies. Focused questions on accuracy of linear measurements when using CBCT, digital vs. conventional implant planning, using digital vs. conventional impressions and assessing the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and patient-related outcome measurements when using s-CAIS were addressed. Materials and methods: The literature was systematically searched, and in total, 232 articles were selected and critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. Four systematic reviews were produced in the four subject areas and amply discussed in the group. After emendation, they were presented to the plenary where after further modification, they were accepted. Results: Static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), in terms of pain & discomfort, economics and intraoperative complications, is beneficial compared with conventional implant surgery. When using s-CAIS in partially edentulous cases, a higher level of accuracy can be achieved when compared to fully edentulous cases. When using an intraoral scanner in edentulous cases, the results are dependent on the protocol that has been followed. The accuracy of measurements on CBCT scans is software dependent. Conclusions: Because the precision intraoral scans and of measurements on CBCT scans and is not high enough to allow for the required accuracy, s-CAIS should be considered as an additional tool for comprehensive diagnosis, treatment planning, and surgical procedures. Flapless s-CAIS can lead to implant placement outside of the zone of keratinized mucosa and thus must be executed with utmost care.",

author = "D. Wismeijer and T. Joda and T. Fl{\"u}gge and G. Fokas and A. Tahmaseb and D. Bechelli and L. Bohner and M. Bornstein and A. Burgoyne and S. Caram and R. Carmichael and C.Y. Chen and W. Coucke and W. Derksen and N. Donos and {El Kholy}, K. and C. Evans and V. Fehmer and S. Fickl and G. Fragola and {Gimenez Gonzales}, B. and H. Gholami and D. Hashim and Y. Hui and A. K{\"o}kat and K. Vazouras and S. K{\"u}hl and A. Lanis and R. Leesungbok and {van der Meer}, J. and Z. Liu and T. Sato and {De Souza}, A. and W.C. Scarfe and M. Tosta and {van Zyl}, P. and K. Vach and V. Vaughn and M. Vucetic and P. Wang and B. Wen and V. Wu",

note = "In special issue: Proceedings of the Sixth ITI Consensus Conference.",

year = "2018",

doi = "10.1111/clr.13309",

language = "English",

volume = "29",

pages = "436--442",

journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",

issn = "0905-7161",

publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",

number = "S16",

}

Wismeijer, D, Joda, T, Flügge, T, Fokas, G, Tahmaseb, A, Bechelli, D, Bohner, L, Bornstein, M, Burgoyne, A, Caram, S, Carmichael, R, Chen, CY, Coucke, W, Derksen, W, Donos, N, El Kholy, K, Evans, C, Fehmer, V, Fickl, S, Fragola, G, Gimenez Gonzales, B, Gholami, H, Hashim, D, Hui, Y, Kökat, A, Vazouras, K, Kühl, S, Lanis, A, Leesungbok, R, van der Meer, J, Liu, Z, Sato, T, De Souza, A, Scarfe, WC, Tosta, M, van Zyl, P, Vach, K, Vaughn, V, Vucetic, M, Wang, P, Wen, B & Wu, V 2018, 'Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies', Clinical Oral Implants Research, vol. 29, no. S16, pp. 436-442. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13309

TY - JOUR

T1 - Group 5 ITI Consensus Report

T2 - Digital technologies

AU - Wismeijer, D.

AU - Joda, T.

AU - Flügge, T.

AU - Fokas, G.

AU - Tahmaseb, A.

AU - Bechelli, D.

AU - Bohner, L.

AU - Bornstein, M.

AU - Burgoyne, A.

AU - Caram, S.

AU - Carmichael, R.

AU - Chen, C.Y.

AU - Coucke, W.

AU - Derksen, W.

AU - Donos, N.

AU - El Kholy, K.

AU - Evans, C.

AU - Fehmer, V.

AU - Fickl, S.

AU - Fragola, G.

AU - Gimenez Gonzales, B.

AU - Gholami, H.

AU - Hashim, D.

AU - Hui, Y.

AU - Kökat, A.

AU - Vazouras, K.

AU - Kühl, S.

AU - Lanis, A.

AU - Leesungbok, R.

AU - van der Meer, J.

AU - Liu, Z.

AU - Sato, T.

AU - De Souza, A.

AU - Scarfe, W.C.

AU - Tosta, M.

AU - van Zyl, P.

AU - Vach, K.

AU - Vaughn, V.

AU - Vucetic, M.

AU - Wang, P.

AU - Wen, B.

AU - Wu, V.

N1 - In special issue: Proceedings of the Sixth ITI Consensus Conference.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Objectives: Working Group 5 was assigned the task to review the current knowledge in the area of digital technologies. Focused questions on accuracy of linear measurements when using CBCT, digital vs. conventional implant planning, using digital vs. conventional impressions and assessing the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and patient-related outcome measurements when using s-CAIS were addressed. Materials and methods: The literature was systematically searched, and in total, 232 articles were selected and critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. Four systematic reviews were produced in the four subject areas and amply discussed in the group. After emendation, they were presented to the plenary where after further modification, they were accepted. Results: Static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), in terms of pain & discomfort, economics and intraoperative complications, is beneficial compared with conventional implant surgery. When using s-CAIS in partially edentulous cases, a higher level of accuracy can be achieved when compared to fully edentulous cases. When using an intraoral scanner in edentulous cases, the results are dependent on the protocol that has been followed. The accuracy of measurements on CBCT scans is software dependent. Conclusions: Because the precision intraoral scans and of measurements on CBCT scans and is not high enough to allow for the required accuracy, s-CAIS should be considered as an additional tool for comprehensive diagnosis, treatment planning, and surgical procedures. Flapless s-CAIS can lead to implant placement outside of the zone of keratinized mucosa and thus must be executed with utmost care.

AB - Objectives: Working Group 5 was assigned the task to review the current knowledge in the area of digital technologies. Focused questions on accuracy of linear measurements when using CBCT, digital vs. conventional implant planning, using digital vs. conventional impressions and assessing the accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery (s-CAIS) and patient-related outcome measurements when using s-CAIS were addressed. Materials and methods: The literature was systematically searched, and in total, 232 articles were selected and critically reviewed following PRISMA guidelines. Four systematic reviews were produced in the four subject areas and amply discussed in the group. After emendation, they were presented to the plenary where after further modification, they were accepted. Results: Static computer-aided surgery (s-CAIS), in terms of pain & discomfort, economics and intraoperative complications, is beneficial compared with conventional implant surgery. When using s-CAIS in partially edentulous cases, a higher level of accuracy can be achieved when compared to fully edentulous cases. When using an intraoral scanner in edentulous cases, the results are dependent on the protocol that has been followed. The accuracy of measurements on CBCT scans is software dependent. Conclusions: Because the precision intraoral scans and of measurements on CBCT scans and is not high enough to allow for the required accuracy, s-CAIS should be considered as an additional tool for comprehensive diagnosis, treatment planning, and surgical procedures. Flapless s-CAIS can lead to implant placement outside of the zone of keratinized mucosa and thus must be executed with utmost care.

U2 - 10.1111/clr.13309

DO - 10.1111/clr.13309

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30328201

SN - 0905-7161

VL - 29

SP - 436

EP - 442

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

IS - S16

ER -

Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Fingerprint

Cite this