Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
Medientyp:
E-Artikel
Titel:
Intrasubject comparison of digital vs. conventional workflow for screw‐retained single‐implant crowns: Prosthodontic and patient‐centered outcomes
Beteiligte:
Delize, Vincent;
Bouhy, Alice;
Lambert, France;
Lamy, Marc
Beschreibung:
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objectives</jats:title><jats:p>The aim of this intrasubject clinical study was to measure and compare prosthodontic and patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the fabrication of implant‐supported, all‐ceramic single crowns with a full digital workflow and a conventional workflow.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Materials and methods</jats:title><jats:p>Thirty‐one patients were subjected to first a digital (test group) and then a conventional impression (control group) at the same visit. From the intraoral optical scanner (IOS), a screw‐retained, monolithic crown was delivered according to a complete digital workflow (no cast), whereas a veneered crown on a zirconia (Zi) frame was provided as a control treatment. Both crowns were assessed during the clinical stages of try‐in. Prosthodontic outcomes (contact points, occlusion, PROMs, and esthetic results using the white esthetic score [WES]) were assessed.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Occlusion and interproximal contacts showed comparable results for the two workflows (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.37 and <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.36, respectively), whereas the global WES was significantly higher (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.0001) in the control group. Patient satisfaction scores, using visual analog scales (VAS), were significantly better for IOS than for conventional impressions (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.0098). On the contrary, patients’ perception of the esthetic outcomes showed significantly higher value (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> < 0.0001) in the control group.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title><jats:p>Both workflows allowed the delivery of ceramic crowns within two appointments. The clinical fit was acceptable in both groups. A better esthetic outcome, in both patients’ and clinicians’ opinions, was found in the control group. PROMs showed higher satisfaction with the IOS.</jats:p></jats:sec>