Sep 27, 2022
Chairside vs Labside All-Ceramic FDPs - A Systematic Review
- tim.joda 1
- 1University of Zurich
- tim.joda : Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry
Protocol Citation: tim.joda 2022. Chairside vs Labside All-Ceramic FDPs - A Systematic Review . protocols.io https://dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.kqdg3953qg25/v1
License: This is an open access protocol distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited
Protocol status: Working
We use this protocol and it's working
Created: September 27, 2022
Last Modified: September 27, 2022
Protocol Integer ID: 70544
Keywords: reconstructive dentistry, new possibilities in reconstructive dentistry, chairside dental protocol, cam processing of the dental restoration, dental restoration, office treatment of prosthetic restoration, prosthetic restoration, virtual dental patient, using virtual dental patient, clinical preparation of the restoration site, dentistry, prosthetic reconstruction, therapy with monolithic restoration, dental protocol, technical fabrication of the restoration, monolithic restoration, attribute phrasedigital dentistryi, digital 3d diagnostic, dental medicine, intraoral optical scanning, dentist, restoration, prosthetic invisibility, cad, ceramic fdp, technical fabrication, treatment simulation, office treatment, point of treatment simulation, clinical preparation, high esthetic, convenient treatment experience, digitalization, further cad, clinical insertion, restoration site, tooth, treatment option for immediate rehabilitation, term digital, immediate rehabilitation, chairside, aided design, aided manufacturi
Abstract
Nowadays, the term digital is ubiquitous and everything has to be digitally branded to be up to date. Digitalization is not a trend, it is reality – and dental medicine is no exception. Dentistry is digital, the attribute phrasedigital dentistryis no longer necessary.
This continuous IT process has opened up new possibilities in reconstructive dentistry. On the one hand, digital 3D diagnostics has rapidly developed to the point of treatment simulation using virtual dental patients, and on the other hand, new production processes using computer-aided design / computer-aided manufacturing [CAD/CAM] for therapy with monolithic restorations are now feasible.
Chairside dental protocols allow in-office treatment of prosthetic restorations during a single appointment: (1) starting with clinical preparation of the restoration site, either tooth-borne or implant-retained; (2) followed by intraoral optical scanning [IOS]; (3) further CAD/CAM processing of the dental restoration; and finally (4) clinical insertion.
However, chairside does not necessarily mean a ‘one-man-show’ by the clinician, but rather a treatment option for immediate rehabilitation on a single-visit basis. Patients expect high esthetics, prosthetic invisibility, and incorporated function in harmony. They are also looking for a time-saving solution and convenient treatment experience, but they do not care who performs and finalizes the technical fabrication of the restoration. In the end, the prosthetic reconstruction must meet all expectations for both the patient and the dentist.
Troubleshooting
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Chairside versus labside CAD/CAM monolithic all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs): A systematic review
| A | B | C | D | E | |
| Focused question (PICO) | Do chairside versus labside CAD/CAM monolithic all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses demonstrate comparable outcomes in terms of cost-effectiveness, patient-reported outcome measures, esthetics, and survival and success after 1 year in function? | ||||
| Search Strategy | Population | Monolithic all-ceramic fixed dental prostheses (FDPs)[single crowns and multi-unit restorations] | |||
| Intervention | Chairside CAD/CAM workflows | ||||
| Comparison | Labside CAD/CAM workflows | ||||
| Outcome(s) | Cost-effectiveness (economics as time-efficiency and costs)*; Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) [2nd]; Esthetics [2nd]; Precision and accuracy [2nd]; Technical and biological complications [2nd]; Survival and success (follow-up > 1 year) [2nd] | ||||
| Database search | Language | English | |||
| Database | PubMed; Web of Science | ||||
| Inclusion Criteria | Clinical trials (> 10 patients) | ||||