Christoph H F Hämmerle1, Luca Cordaro2, Nele van Assche3, Goran I Benic1, Michael Bornstein4, Felix Gamper1, Klaus Gotfredsen5, David Harris6, Marc Hürzeler7,8, Reinhilde Jacobs9, Theodoros Kapos10, Ralf J Kohal11, Sebastian B M Patzelt11, Irena Sailer12, Ali Tahmaseb13, Marjolein Vercruyssen14, Daniel Wismeijer13. 1. Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 2. Department of Periodontology and Prosthodontics, Eastman Dental Hospital, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Periodontology, Catholic University Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Department of Oral Surgery and Stomatology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 5. Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health Science, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Dublin Dental School and Hospital, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland. 7. Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Dental School, University of Freiburg, Albert-Ludwigs-University, Freiburg, Germany. 8. Private Practice, Munich, Germany. 9. Department Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, OIC, OMFS IMPATH Research Group, University of Leuven and Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 10. Private Practice, London, UK. 11. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 12. Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Occlusion, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. 13. Section of Oral Implantology and Fixed Prosthetics, Department of Oral Function, Academic Centre of Dentistry Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 14. Department of Oral Health Sciences, Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University Leuven, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The task of this working group was to assess the existing knowledge in computer-assisted implant planning and placement, fabrication of reconstructions applying computers compared to traditional fabrication, and assessments of treatment outcomes using novel imaging techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three reviews were available for assessing the current literature and provided the basis for the discussions and the consensus report. One review dealt with the use of computers to plan implant therapy and to place implants in partially and fully edentulous patients. A second one focused on novel techniques and methods to assess treatment outcomes and the third compared CAD/CAM-fabricated reconstructions to conventionally fabricated ones. RESULTS: The consensus statements, the clinical recommendations, and the implications for research, all of them after approval by the plenum of the consensus conference, are described in this article. The three articles by Vercruyssen et al., Patzelt & Kohal, and Benic et al. are presented separately as part of the supplement of this consensus conference.
OBJECTIVE: The task of this working group was to assess the existing knowledge in computer-assisted implant planning and placement, fabrication of reconstructions applying computers compared to traditional fabrication, and assessments of treatment outcomes using novel imaging techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three reviews were available for assessing the current literature and provided the basis for the discussions and the consensus report. One review dealt with the use of computers to plan implant therapy and to place implants in partially and fully edentulouspatients. A second one focused on novel techniques and methods to assess treatment outcomes and the third compared CAD/CAM-fabricated reconstructions to conventionally fabricated ones. RESULTS: The consensus statements, the clinical recommendations, and the implications for research, all of them after approval by the plenum of the consensus conference, are described in this article. The three articles by Vercruyssen et al., Patzelt & Kohal, and Benic et al. are presented separately as part of the supplement of this consensus conference.
Authors: Francesca Cattoni; Luca Chirico; Alberto Merlone; Michele Manacorda; Raffaele Vinci; Enrico Felice Gherlone Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Gilberto Sammartino; David M Dohan Ehrenfest; Jamil A Shibli; Pablo Galindo-Moreno Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2016-03-17 Impact factor: 3.411