Skip to content
Log in

Author

K. Kalani

View on Semantic Scholar

2 papers indexed here

We haven’t gathered this author’s papers yet. Follow them and we’ll fetch their work.

Not the right person? Other researchers publish under this name.

Open access Jul 2026

Accuracy of scannable anatomic healing abutments for implant-supported crown and fixed partial prostheses: An in vitro comparison with conventional scan bodies.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM Accurate digital implant scanning is critical for the fit, function, and biological stability of implant-supported restorations. Anatomic scannable healing abutments (AHAs) have been proposed as an alternative to conventional scan bodies (SBs) to simplify digital workflows and facilitate the development of an adequate emergence profile. However, their accuracy in crown and short-span fixed dental prosthesis scenarios remains insufficiently investigated. PURPOSE The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of implant position detection obtained using AHAs versus SBs in single-crown and short-span fixed dental prosthesis configurations. MATERIAL AND METHODS Two partially edentulous maxillary models were digitally designed and 3-dimensionally (3D) printed: 1 with a single molar edentulous site and 1 with a 3-tooth posterior edentulous span. Implant analogs were placed in the models to simulate a single implant site and a 3-unit implant fixed dental prosthesis site. AHAs (test group) or SBs (control group) were connected to the analogs. A desktop scanner was used to obtain baseline scans for each group, while 15 consecutive intraoral scans per group were acquired using an intraoral scanner. Linear (mesiodistal, buccolingual, coronoapical), angular, and overall 3D deviations at the implant platform center were calculated and analyzed using the t test and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS For the single-crown model, AHAs demonstrated significantly better mean 3D trueness than SBs (20 µm and 74 µm; P<.001), as well as better angular deviation (0.11 degrees and 0.44 degrees; P<.001). Precision was also better for AHAs, with a mean 3D deviation of 10 ±5 µm compared with 67 ±37 µm for SBs (P<.001). In the 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis model, AHAs consistently showed better trueness and precision at both premolar and molar positions. At the molar site, mean 3D trueness was 24 µm for AHAs versus 103 µm for SBs (P<.001), and mean 3D precision was 22 ±9 µm versus 79 ±54 µm (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS AHAs demonstrated significantly higher trueness and precision than SBs for implant position detection in single-crown and short-span fixed dental prosthesis scenarios.

Paolo Nava, Carlo Nava, David Dunbar et al. · 0 citations
Review Open access Jul 2026

Outcome Measures and ID-COSM Reporting Standards in Alveolar Ridge Augmentation: A Systematic Review of Clinical Trials.

AIM To evaluate outcome measures in clinical studies on alveolar ridge augmentation (ARA) and map them to the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) framework and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) terminology. METHODS A systematic search was carried out across four databases through June 2025. Randomised and non-randomised clinical trials, prospective clinical studies, cohort studies and pilot clinical studies evaluating ARA performed before or simultaneously with implant placement were included. Extracted outcomes were mapped to ID-COSM domains, subdomains and specific outcomes, and all were classified into FDA-style outcome types. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Domain 4 of RoB 2.0/ROBINS-I, and associations between RoB and completeness of outcome reporting were analysed with Spearman's rank correlation and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS Four hundred and twenty-nine studies were included, predominantly randomised controlled trials (56.4%). Less than half of the studies fulfilled the mandatory ID-COSM domains (47.6%), and none reported all nine subdomains. For mandatory outcomes, surgical complications (52.7%) and implant placement feasibility (48.3%) were more frequently reported than bone dimensional changes (33.8%), and peri-implant bone stability was reported in only 11.0% of studies. For FDA categorisation, clinician-reported outcomes (86.3%) and biomarkers (87.7%) predominated, while patient-reported outcomes were reported in 31.9% of studies. Observer-reported or performance outcomes were completely absent. Lower risk of bias was associated with more complete reporting of outcomes across domains, subdomains and specific outcomes (p = 0.032, 0.017 and 0.009, respectively). CONCLUSION Outcome reporting for ARA trials is highly heterogeneous and poorly aligned with the standardised minimum outcomes recommended by ID-COSM and FDA categorisation.

K. Kalani, Hamoun Sabri, M. Lodhi et al. · 0 citations