Current Oral Health Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 131–135 | Cite as

Digital Workflow in Implant Dentistry

  • Mark LudlowEmail author
  • Walter Renne
Digital and Esthetic Dentistry (P Stathopoulou and E Anadioti, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Digital and Esthetic Dentistry


Purpose of Review

Implant dentistry is going through a digital revolution. Through the development of new equipment and their corresponding workflows, the diagnosis and treatment of our patients are becoming simpler and more efficient. This review examines the workflows and techniques that apply digital technology to the pre-operative planning stages, the surgical placement, and the prosthetic phases of implant treatment.

Recent Findings

With the current influx of new hardware and software into the market, dental technology has the potential to infiltrate every area of clinical implant dentistry. Its use generally begins with the diagnostic scanning by means of an intra-oral scanner and cone beam computed tomography. These modalities, in conjunction with implant planning software, allow for the planning and the guided surgical execution of dental implants. Technology can further be used with the prosthetic design and manufacturing of the interim and final restorations of the implants allowing all areas of clinical diagnosis and care to have the opportunity to apply digital dentistry. These tools can allow for more predictable, profitable, and pleasant treatment for our patients.


As our clinical landscape changes with the influx of digital tools, the uses, workflows, and clinical protocols associated with implant dentistry can be learned and applied in our daily clinical practice allowing for the streamlining and simplification of patient care.


Dental implants Intra-oral scanning Implant planning software CADCAM manufacturing 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Mark Ludlow was a lecturer for DentsplySirona, Planmeca, and Nobel Biocare, outside of the submitted work.

Walter Renne declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Rossini G, Parrini S, Castroflorio T, Deregibus A, Debernardi C. Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2016;149:161–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    •• Hack G, Patzelt S. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intra-oral scanning devices: an in-vitro investigation. JADA. 2015;10:1–5. A good overview of current intraoral scanners and their accuracy Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of seven digital scanners: an in-vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisions. J Pros Dent 2016 JPD-D-16-00503R5. A comparison paper examining scanning accuracy and efficiency with multiple digital scanners in both quadrant and full arch scans.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agbaje JO, Jacobes R, Maes F, Michiels K, Steenberghe D. Volumetric analysis of extraction sockets using cone beam computed tomography: a pilot study on ex vivo jaw bone. J Clin Periodontol. 2007;34:985–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lund H, Grondahl K, Grondahl HG. Accuracy and precision of linear measurements in cone beam tomography Accuitomo tomograms obtained with different reconstruction techniques. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology. 2009;38:379–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Timock AM, Cook V, McDonald T, Leo MC, Crowe J, Benninger BL, Covell D. Accuracy and reliability of buccal bone height and thickness measurements from cone-beam computed tomography imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;140:734–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Di Giacomo G, Cury P, Araujo N, Sendyk W, Sendyk C. Clinical application of stereolithographic surgical guides for implant placement: preliminary results. J Periodontol. 2005;76:503–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Arisan V, Karabuda C, Mumcu E, Ozdemir T. Implant positioning errors in freehand and computer-aided placement methods: a single-blind clinical comparative study. Int J Oral Max Implants. 2013;28:190–204. This paper compares the positional errors that occur during free-handed versus guided implant placement. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Assche N, Vercruyssen M, Coucke W, Teugheis W, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Accuracy of computer-aided implant placement. Clin Oral Imp Res. 2012;23(Suppl 6):112–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nkenke E, Eitner S, Radespiel-Tröger M, Vairaktaris E, Neukam FW, Fenner M. Patient-centered outcomes comparing transmucosal implant placement with an open approach in the maxilla: a prospective, non-randomized pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18:809–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fortin T, Bosson J, Isidori M, Blanchet E. Effecct of flapless surgery on pain experienced in implant placement using an image-guided system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006;21:298–304.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arisan V, Bolukbasi N, Oksuz L. Implant surgery using bone- and mucosa-supported steriolighographic guides in totally edentulous jaws; surgical and post-operative outcomes of computer-aided vs. standard techniques. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010;21:980–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gherlone E, Cappare P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional versus digital impresions for “all-on-four” restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31:324–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann N. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Impl Res 2016 1–6.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joda T, Bragger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2015 1–5.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abduo J, Bennamoun M, Tennant M, McGeachie J. Impact of digital prosthodontics planning on dental esthetics: biometric analysis of esthetic parameters. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115:57–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Joda T, Braegger U. Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns. J of Clin Or Implant Res. 2014;25:1304–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    •• Joda T, Katsoulis J, Bragger U. Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clin Impl Dent Relat Res 2015 1–9. This manuscript quantifies the efficiency of the digital process compared to analog restoration fabrication.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Dental Medicine, Department of Oral RehabilitationMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations