Clinical evaluation of closed tray impression and intraoral scanning techniques in single posterior tissue-level implant-supported crowns: A self-controlled case study
Different techniques have been used to record the locations of dental implants, yet research examining the clinical outcomes of posterior implant-supported prostheses generated by different techniques, particularly concerning their fit, is lacking. The purpose of this self-controlled study was to ev...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Journal of prosthetic dentistry 2024-07 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Different techniques have been used to record the locations of dental implants, yet research examining the clinical outcomes of posterior implant-supported prostheses generated by different techniques, particularly concerning their fit, is lacking.
The purpose of this self-controlled study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of closed tray impression making and intraoral scanning for single posterior implant-supported restorations.
Eighty-two participants with a single missing posterior tooth were included. The restorations were delivered a minimum of 3 months after tissue-level implant placement. Each participant was provided with 2 screw-retained monolithic zirconia crowns, produced using 3-dimensional (3D) gel deposition from both closed tray impression making (control group) and intraoral scanning using an iTero scanner (experimental group). The recording operating time, the patient comfort assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), and the fit of the crowns were recorded during clinical evaluation. The paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test were conducted to statistically analyze the differences between the 2 techniques (α=.05).
Seventy-six participants completed the study with a dropout rate of 7.3%. The mean ±standard deviation recording operating time of the control and experimental groups was 683 ±164 and 777 ±407 s, respectively (P |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0022-3913 1097-6841 1097-6841 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.05.026 |