Cargando…

Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: This double‐blind randomized controlled trial analyzed patient‐reported outcome measures in terms of subjective patient satisfaction compared to objective dental evaluation of prosthetic treatment with 3‐unit monolithic zirconium dioxide implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) in 3 digital...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gintaute, Aiste, Zitzmann, Nicola U., Brägger, Urs, Weber, Karin, Joda, Tim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35938349
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13589
_version_ 1785022284767952896
author Gintaute, Aiste
Zitzmann, Nicola U.
Brägger, Urs
Weber, Karin
Joda, Tim
author_facet Gintaute, Aiste
Zitzmann, Nicola U.
Brägger, Urs
Weber, Karin
Joda, Tim
author_sort Gintaute, Aiste
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: This double‐blind randomized controlled trial analyzed patient‐reported outcome measures in terms of subjective patient satisfaction compared to objective dental evaluation of prosthetic treatment with 3‐unit monolithic zirconium dioxide implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) in 3 digital workflows. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients were restored with 3 iFDPs each on Straumann TL‐implants with 2 completely digital workflows using different intraoral optical scanning systems with model‐free fabrication of the restoration (Trios 3/3Shape [Test‐1]; Virtuo Vivo/Straumann [Test‐2]), and mixed analog‐digital workflow with conventional impressions and digitized gypsum casts (Impregum/3M Espe [Control]). The order of impression‐taking and the prosthetic try‐in were randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs were compared for patient satisfaction and dental evaluation using ANOVA. RESULTS: For iFDP evaluation, patients generally provided more favorable ratings than dental experts, regardless of the workflow. ANOVA revealed no significant difference for overall satisfaction when comparing Test‐1, Test‐2, or Control, either for patients (f‐ratio: 0.13; p = 0.876) or dentist (f‐ratio: 1.55: p = 0.221). Secondary, patients clearly favored the digital impression workflows over the conventional approach (f‐ratio: 14.57; p < 0.001). Overall, the 3Shape workflow (Test‐1) received the highest scores for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The different digital workflows demonstrated minor influence on the subjective and objective evaluation of the monolithic zirconium dioxide iFDPs in nonesthetic regions; however, the dentist may significantly increase patient satisfaction by choosing intraoral scanning instead of conventional impressions. The dentist has to consider individual patients’ needs to fulfill their expectations for a personalized solution.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10087166
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-100871662023-04-12 Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial Gintaute, Aiste Zitzmann, Nicola U. Brägger, Urs Weber, Karin Joda, Tim J Prosthodont Original Articles PURPOSE: This double‐blind randomized controlled trial analyzed patient‐reported outcome measures in terms of subjective patient satisfaction compared to objective dental evaluation of prosthetic treatment with 3‐unit monolithic zirconium dioxide implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) in 3 digital workflows. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients were restored with 3 iFDPs each on Straumann TL‐implants with 2 completely digital workflows using different intraoral optical scanning systems with model‐free fabrication of the restoration (Trios 3/3Shape [Test‐1]; Virtuo Vivo/Straumann [Test‐2]), and mixed analog‐digital workflow with conventional impressions and digitized gypsum casts (Impregum/3M Espe [Control]). The order of impression‐taking and the prosthetic try‐in were randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs were compared for patient satisfaction and dental evaluation using ANOVA. RESULTS: For iFDP evaluation, patients generally provided more favorable ratings than dental experts, regardless of the workflow. ANOVA revealed no significant difference for overall satisfaction when comparing Test‐1, Test‐2, or Control, either for patients (f‐ratio: 0.13; p = 0.876) or dentist (f‐ratio: 1.55: p = 0.221). Secondary, patients clearly favored the digital impression workflows over the conventional approach (f‐ratio: 14.57; p < 0.001). Overall, the 3Shape workflow (Test‐1) received the highest scores for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The different digital workflows demonstrated minor influence on the subjective and objective evaluation of the monolithic zirconium dioxide iFDPs in nonesthetic regions; however, the dentist may significantly increase patient satisfaction by choosing intraoral scanning instead of conventional impressions. The dentist has to consider individual patients’ needs to fulfill their expectations for a personalized solution. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-08-23 2023-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10087166/ /pubmed/35938349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13589 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Prosthodontics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Prosthodontists. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Gintaute, Aiste
Zitzmann, Nicola U.
Brägger, Urs
Weber, Karin
Joda, Tim
Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial
title Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial
title_full Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial
title_short Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial
title_sort patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic zro(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: a double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10087166/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35938349
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13589
work_keys_str_mv AT gintauteaiste patientreportedoutcomemeasurescomparedtoprofessionaldentalassessmentsofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesincompletedigitalworkflowsadoubleblindcrossoverrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT zitzmannnicolau patientreportedoutcomemeasurescomparedtoprofessionaldentalassessmentsofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesincompletedigitalworkflowsadoubleblindcrossoverrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT braggerurs patientreportedoutcomemeasurescomparedtoprofessionaldentalassessmentsofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesincompletedigitalworkflowsadoubleblindcrossoverrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT weberkarin patientreportedoutcomemeasurescomparedtoprofessionaldentalassessmentsofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesincompletedigitalworkflowsadoubleblindcrossoverrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT jodatim patientreportedoutcomemeasurescomparedtoprofessionaldentalassessmentsofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesincompletedigitalworkflowsadoubleblindcrossoverrandomizedcontrolledtrial