Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed completearch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P <.05). RESULTS. The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x~=02:58; CI, x~=31:48) (P <.0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x~=05:36; 4: x~=09:16) (P <.0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P <.005). CONCLUSION. Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.
Abstract
PURPOSE. To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed completearch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P <.05). RESULTS. The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x~=02:58; CI, x~=31:48) (P <.0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x~=05:36; 4: x~=09:16) (P <.0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P <.005). CONCLUSION. Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.
참고문헌 (37)
- Kachhara S, "Assessment of intraoral scanhttpsning technology for multiple implant impressions-A systematic review and meta-analysis", J Indian Prosthodont Soc, 20, pp.141~152 (2020)
- Richi MW, "Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants : Accuracy of impressions in multiple and angulated implants", Head Face Med, 16, pp.9~ (2020)
- Wee AG, "Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions", J Prosthet Dent, 83, pp.323~331 (2000)
- Ma J, "Complete arch implant impression technique", J Prosthet Dent, 107, pp.405~410 (2012)
- Ribeiro P, "Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions-an in vitro study", Int J Environ Res Public Health, 15, pp.1599~ (2018)
- Yuzbasioglu E, "Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques:evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes", BMC Oral Health, 14, pp.10~ (2014)
- Cappare P, "Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations : a randomized clinical trial", Int J Environ Res Public Health, 16, pp.829~ (2019)
- Benic GI, "Randomized controlled within-subject evaluation of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of lithium disilicate single crowns. Part I:digital versus conventional unilateral impressions", J Prosthet Dent, 116, pp.777~782 (2016)
- Vandeweghe S, "Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants : an in vitro study", Clin Oral Implants Res, 28, pp.648~653 (2017)
- Lee SJ, "An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions", J Prosthet Dent, 110, pp.420~423 (2013)
- Marti AM, "Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students : instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology", Eur J Dent Educ, 21, pp.200~205 (2017)
- Kim J, "Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners", J Prosthet Dent, 116, pp.221~230 (2016)
- Lim JH, "Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience", J Prosthet Dent, 119, pp.225~232 (2018)
- Zimmermann M, "Intraoral scanning systems-a current overview", Int J Comput Dent, 18, pp.101~129 (2015)
- Martin CB, "Orthodontic scanners : what’s available?", J Orthod, 42, pp.136~143 (2015)
- Imburgia M, "Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology : a comparative in vitro study", BMC Oral Health, 17, pp.92~ (2017)
- Carneiro Pereira AL, "Partially digital workflow for making complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses : A dental technique", J Prosthet Dent (2021)
- Iturrate M, "Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device", J Prosthet Dent, 121, pp.447~454 (2019)
- Stumpel LJ, "Workflow for a metal-resin-zirconia fixed complete denture : A dental technique", J Prosthet Dent, 125, pp.396~401 (2021)
- Joda T, "Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 18, pp.946~954 (2016)
- Joda T, "conventional implant prosthetic workflows : a cost", time analysis, 2015, pp.26, 1430~1435
- Delize V, "Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient-centered outcomes", Clin Oral Implants Res, 30, pp.892~902 (2019)
- Mangano F, "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, pp.5325032~ (2018)
- Di Fiore A, "Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns : a comparison of key considerations", Int J Prosthodont, 31, pp.577~579 (2018)
- Gherlone E, "Conventional versus digital impressions for"All-on-Four"restorations", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 31, pp.324~330 (2016)
- Burzynski JA, "Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions : Time and patient satisfaction", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 153, pp.534~541 (2018)
- Grünheid T, "Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 146, pp.673~682 (2014)
- Schepke U, "Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns : Operating time and patient preference", J Prosthet Dent, 114, pp.403~406 (2015)
- von Elm E, "The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology(STROBE)statement : guidelines for reporting observational studies", J Clin Epidemiol, 61, pp.344~349 (2008)
- Carneiro Pereira AL, "Trueness of a device for intraoral scanning to capture the angle and distance between implants in edentulous mandibular arches", J Prosthet Dent (2021)
- Dispositivo para escaneamento intraoral de implantes em arcos edêntulos, "Carreiro AFP", Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI), ~, pp.BR 102019 026265 6 (2020)
- Pereira ALC, "Carreiro AFP Solid index versus impression for transferring the position of implants in mandibular total edentulous arches : A clinical study on trueness", Int J Adv Engineer Res Sci, 8, pp.1~7 (2021)
- Mangano FG, "Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression : in vitro trueness evaluation", BMC Res Notes, 13, pp.504~ (2020)
- Flügge TV, "Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners", Int J Prosthodont, 29, pp.277~283 (2016)
- Andriessen FS, "Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles : a pilot study", J Prosthet Dent, 111, pp.186~194 (2014)
- Braian M, "Trueness and precision of 5intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts : a comparative in vitro study", J Prosthet Dent, 122, pp.129~136 (2019)
- Vasudavan S, "Comparison of intraoral 3D scanning and conventional impressions for fabrication of orthodontic retainers", J Clin Orthod, 44, pp.495~497 (2010)