Soft tissue surgery and scanners: applications and perspectives into clinical research

With the advent of digital dentistry, we have more accurate intraoral scanners (IOSs) than ever before. Overcoming various difficulties with conventional impression techniques, optical IOSs are now widely used within the restorative and orthodontic specialities. In recent years, IOSs have been steadily integrated into soft tissue surgery, and guided implant surgery. The aim of this review article is to examine current applications and methodologies when using digital scanners to quantify outcomes in soft tissue surgery. In addition, advantages and disadvantages of current techniques are discussed, alongside an insight into the new perspectives generated by this technology. Areas for future research are highlighted. This overview of contemporary literature leads to the conclusion that current IOSs are sufficiently accurate for assessing and monitoring soft tissue changes; however, further studies are needed to address the complexities of scanning mobile tissues.

[1]  R. Jung,et al.  Tunnel technique with connective tissue graft versus coronally advanced flap with enamel matrix derivative for root coverage: a RCT using 3D digital measuring methods. Part II. Volumetric studies on healing dynamics and gingival dimensions. , 2014, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[2]  S. Logozzo,et al.  Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature , 2017, BMC oral health.

[3]  G. Christensen.  Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? , 2008, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[4]  P. Kämmerer,et al.  A new method for volumetric evaluation of gingival recessions: a feasibility study. , 2012, Journal of periodontology.

[5]  D. Tarnow,et al.  An open randomized controlled clinical trial to evaluate ridge preservation and repair using SocketKAP(™) and SocketKAGE(™) : part 1-three-dimensional volumetric soft tissue analysis of study casts. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  Peter A. Mossey,et al.  Orthodontic Scanners: What's Available? , 2015, Journal of orthodontics.

[7]  T Jemt,et al.  Regeneration of gingival papillae after single-implant treatment. , 1997, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[8]  R. Jung,et al.  Volumetric changes at pontic sites with or without soft tissue grafting: a controlled clinical study with a 10‐year follow‐up , 2017, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[9]  T. Attin,et al.  In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[10]  U. Belser,et al.  Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores. , 2009, Journal of periodontology.

[11]  M. Roos,et al.  Comparison between clinical and digital soft tissue measurements. , 2014, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[12]  P. Miller,et al.  A classification of marginal tissue recession. , 1985, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[13]  R. Jung,et al.  Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen-based matrices: a volumetric analysis. , 2010, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[14]  R Hickel,et al.  A New Optical 3-D Device for the Detection of Wear , 1997, Journal of dental research.

[15]  D. Tarnow,et al.  A classification system for loss of papillary height. , 1998, Journal of periodontology.

[16]  Andreas Ender,et al.  Dimensional changes of the ridge contour after socket preservation and buccal overbuilding: an animal study. , 2009, Journal of clinical periodontology.

[17]  D. Cardaropoli,et al.  The Papilla Presence Index (PPI): a new system to assess interproximal papillary levels. , 2004, The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry.

[18]  S. Logozzo,et al.  Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study , 2017, BMC Oral Health.

[19]  W M Johnston,et al.  Assessment of Appearance Match by Visual Observation and Clinical Colorimetry , 1989, Journal of dental research.

[20]  Philip Robinson,et al.  Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression , 2017, Journal of healthcare engineering.

[21]  R. Jung,et al.  Volumetric changes and peri‐implant health at implant sites with or without soft tissue grafting in the esthetic zone, a retrospective case–control study with a 5‐year follow‐up , 2017, Clinical oral implants research.

[22]  Andreas Ender,et al.  Volume gain and stability of peri-implant tissue following bone and soft tissue augmentation: 1-year results from a prospective cohort study. , 2011, Clinical oral implants research.

[23]  T. Attin,et al.  In vivo validation of a three-dimensional optical method to document volumetric soft tissue changes of the interdental papilla. , 2009, Journal of periodontology.

[24]  P Schärer,et al.  Quantitative measurement of volume changes induced by oral plastic surgery: validation of an optical method using different geometrically-formed specimens. , 1997, Journal of periodontology.

[25]  S. Heo,et al.  Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[26]  G. Benic,et al.  Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant types: volumetric soft tissue changes at 1 year of loading. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[27]  S Y Chen,et al.  Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials. , 2004, Journal of dentistry.

[28]  M. Zimmermanna,et al.  Intraoral scanning systems – a current overview , 2015 .

[29]  Wael Att,et al.  The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. , 2014, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[30]  Andreas Ender,et al.  A new optical method to evaluate three-dimensional volume changes of alveolar contours: a methodological in vitro study. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[31]  P. Vult von Steyern,et al.  Volumetric measurement of dentoalveolar defects by means of intraoral 3D scanner and gravimetric model , 2019, Odontology.

[32]  Alejandro Lanis,et al.  The combination of digital surface scanners and cone beam computed tomography technology for guided implant surgery using 3Shape implant studio software: a case history report. , 2015, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[33]  Urs C. Belser,et al.  Outcome evaluation of early placed maxillary anterior single-tooth implants using objective esthetic criteria: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in 45 patients with a 2- to 4-year follow-up using pink and white esthetic scores , 2009 .

[34]  Sivabalan Vasudavan,et al.  Comparison of intraoral 3D scanning and conventional impressions for fabrication of orthodontic retainers. , 2010, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[35]  U. Brägger,et al.  Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.