Received 07.03.2025

DOI: 10.35556/idr-2025-3(112)30-35
Justification of the efficiency of using a digital orthopedic protocol in rehabilitation of patients with adentia
Karayev R. K.1, ORCID: 0009-0002-1403-8117
Belova N.M.2, SPIN-code: 1539-0670, AuthorID: 746933, ORCID: 0000-0002-6164-4577
Saperova N.R.2, SPIN-code: 8533-4020, AuthorID: 742236, ORCID: 0000-0002-6862-216X
Borozdkin L.L.3, ORCID: 0000-0002-6403-2621, SPIN-code: 2597-7943, AuthorID: 1221736
Gorislova A.Yu.1, SPIN-code: 1946-0930
Delaeva Kh.U.4, ORCID: 0009-0007-8118-0312
1 Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba
117198, Russia, Moscow, Miklukho-Maklaya St., 6
2 Russian Medical Academy of Continuing Professional Education; Moscow, Russian Federation
125993, Russia, Moscow, Barrikadnaya St., 2/1, bld.1
3 Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation
119048, Russia, Moscow, Trubetskaya St., 8, bld. 2
4 Kadyrov Chechen State University
364061, Russia, Chechnya, Grozny, A. Sheripova St., 32

Summary
The aim of the work was to evaluate the effectiveness of an integrated digital orthodontic protocol in the rehabilitation of patients with adentia and generalized periodontitis.
Material and methods. Based on the literature data, the available digital orthopedic techniques were analyzed and an integrated digital orthopedic protocol was proposed, the application of which is illustrated by a clinical example of treating a patient with adentia and generalized periodontitis.
Results and discussion. The criteria for the effectiveness of therapeutic measures carried out during the implementation of the protocol are presented and the corresponding assessments are carried out within the framework of the considered clinical example.
The advantage of the digital protocol used in comparison with traditional methods in the accuracy of diagnosis and planning, time of treatment, stability of implants, functionality of the prosthesis and patient comfort is shown.
Conclusions. A comparison of the results of the treatment according to the proposed integrated digital orthopedic protocol and traditional methods (according to the literature) has shown a number of advantages of digital technologies, which confirms a number of previous studies.
At the same time, the digital protocol requires further optimization, evaluation of long-term results during multicenter studies with a long follow-up period and the use of artificial intelligence to automate diagnostics, planning and conducting therapeutic measures.

Keywords: digital orthopedic protocol, adentia, rehabilitation, orthopedic constructions, diagnostics, treatment planning.

For citation: Karayev R.K., Belova N.M., Saperova N.R., Borozdkin L.L., Gorislova A.Yu., Delaeva Kh.U. Justification of the efficiency of using a digital orthopedic protocol in rehabilitation of patients with adentia. Stomatology for All / Int. Dental Review. 2025; no. 3 (112): 30–35 (in Russian). doi: 10.35556/idr-2025-3(112)30-35

References
1. Yuzbasioglu E., Kurt H., Turunc R., Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014; no. 14: 10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
2. Clark W.A., Duqum I., Kowalski B.J. The digitally replicated denture technique: A case report. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019; no. 31 (1): 20–25. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12447
3. Kharat S., Dudhani S.I., Kouser A., Subramanian P., Bhattacharjee D., Jhamb V. Exploring the Impact of 3D Printing Technology on Patient-Specific Prosthodontic Rehabilitation: A Comparative Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024; no. 16 (1): 423–426. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_643_23
4. Miyazaki T., Hotta Y., Kunii J., Kuriyama S., Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009; no. 28 (1): 44–56. doi: 10.4012/dmj.28.44
5. Malo P., de Araujo Nobre M., Lopes A., Moss S.M., Molina G.J. A longitudinal study of the survival of All-on-4 implants in the mandible with up to 10 years of follow-up. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011; no. 142 (3): 310–320. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0170
6. Joda T., Gallucci G.O. The virtual patient in dental medicine. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; no. 26 (6): 725–726. doi: 10.1111/clr.12379
7. Alharbi N., Wismeijer D., Osman R.B. Additive Manufacturing Techniques in Prosthodontics: Where Do We Currently Stand? A Critical Review. Int J Prosthodont. 2017; no. 30 (5): 474–484. doi: 10.11607/ijp.5079
8. Mangano F., Veronesi G. Digital versus Analog Procedures for the Prosthetic Restoration of Single Implants: A Randomized Controlled Trial with 1 Year of Follow-Up. Biomed Res Int. 2018; no. 2018 (1): 1–20. doi: 10.1155/2018/5325032
9. Cappare P., Sannino G., Minoli M., Montemezzi P., Ferrini F. Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019; no. 16 (5): 829. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16050829