The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

  • 제14권4호
  • /
  • Pages.212-222
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2005-7806(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-7814(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction

  • 투고 : 2022.03.01
  • 심사 : 2022.08.22
  • 발행 : 2022.08.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

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, $\tilde{x}=02:58$; CI, $\tilde{x}=31:48$) (P<.0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: $\tilde{x}=05:36$; 4: $\tilde{x}=09:16$) (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.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Kachhara S, Nallaswamy D, Ganapathy DM, Sivaswamy V, Rajaraman V. Assessment of intraoral scan-ning technology for multiple implant impressions - A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20:141-52. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_379_19
  2. Richi MW, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O. 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 2020;16:9.
  3. Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:323-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70136-3
  4. Ma J, Rubenstein JE. Complete arch implant impression technique. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107:405-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60100-0
  5. Ribeiro P, Herrero-Climent M, Diaz-Castro C, Rios-Santos JV, Padros R, Mur JG, Falcao C. Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions-an in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2018;15:1599.
  6. 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;14:10.
  7. 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;16:829.
  8. Benic GI, Muhlemann S, Fehmer V, Hammerle CH, Sailer I. 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 2016;116:777-782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.007
  9. Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:648-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12853
  10. Lee SJ, Macarthur RX 4th, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:420-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.06.012
  11. Marti AM, Harris BT, Metz MJ, Morton D, Scarfe WC, Metz CJ, Lin WS. Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology. Eur J Dent Educ 2017;21:200-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12201
  12. Kim J, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Shin IH, Kim M. Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:221-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.018
  13. Lim JH, Park JM, Kim M, Heo SJ, Myung JY. Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:225-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.002
  14. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mormann WH, Reich S. Intraoral scanning systems - a current overview. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18:101-29.
  15. Martin CB, Chalmers EV, McIntyre GT, Cochrane H, Mossey PA. Orthodontic scanners: what's available? J Orthod 2015;42:136-43. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313315Y.0000000001
  16. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:92.
  17. Carneiro Pereira AL, Pinto Campos MFT, Porto de Freitas RFC, Paiva Torres ACS, de Luna Gomes JM, Pellizzer EP, Porto Carreiro ADF. Partially digital workflow for making complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A dental technique. J Prosthet Dent 2021:S0022-3913:00250-X.
  18. Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Etxaniz O, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:447-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.017
  19. Stumpel LJ, Scherer MD. Workflow for a metal-resin-zirconia fixed complete denture: A dental technique. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:396-401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.033
  20. Joda T, Katsoulis J, Bragger U. Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:946-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12377
  21. Joda T, Bragger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1430-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12476
  22. Delize V, Bouhy A, Lambert F, Lamy M. Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient-centered outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:892-902. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13494
  23. 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;2018:5325032.
  24. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: a comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:577-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5938
  25. Gherlone E, Cappare P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional versus digital impressions for "All-on-Four" restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:324-30.
  26. Burzynski JA, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;153:534-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.08.017
  27. Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:673-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
  28. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:403-6.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
  29. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008
  30. Carneiro Pereira AL, Carvalho Porto de Freitas RF, de Fatima Trindade Pinto Campos M, Soares Paiva Torres AC, Bezerra de Medeiros AK, da Fonte Porto Carreiro A. Trueness of a device for intraoral scanning to capture the angle and distance between implants in edentulous mandibular arches. J Prosthet Dent. 2021:S0022-3913:00149-9.
  31. Carreiro AFP, Pereira ALC, de Freitas RFCP, Campos MFTP, Torres ACSP, de Luna Gomes JM, de Luna Gomes, Pellizzer EP. Dispositivo para escaneamento intraoral de implantes em arcos edentulos. Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial (INPI), 2020; BR 10 2019 026265 6.
  32. Pereira ALC, Segundo HVS, Campos MFTP, Curinga MRS, Torres ACSP, 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 2021;8:1-7.
  33. Mangano FG, Bonacina M, Mandelli F, Marchiori F. Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch im-plant impression: in vitro trueness evaluation. BMC Res Notes 2020;13:504.
  34. Flugge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:277-83. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4417
  35. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010
  36. Braian M, Wennerberg A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: a comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:129-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.007
  37. Vasudavan S, Sullivan SR, Sonis AL. Comparison of intraoral 3D scanning and conventional impressions for fabrication of orthodontic retainers. J Clin Orthod 2010;44:495-7.