Cargando…
A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO(2) Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows
This double-blind randomized controlled trial with a crossover design analyzed the technical and clinical performance of three-unit monolithic ZrO(2) implant-fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs), prepared using two complete digital workflows (Test-1, Test-2) and one mixed analog–digital workflow (Control...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8235369/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34208773 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10122661 |
_version_ | 1783714301275537408 |
---|---|
author | Gintaute, Aiste Weber, Karin Zitzmann, Nicola U. Brägger, Urs Ferrari, Marco Joda, Tim |
author_facet | Gintaute, Aiste Weber, Karin Zitzmann, Nicola U. Brägger, Urs Ferrari, Marco Joda, Tim |
author_sort | Gintaute, Aiste |
collection | PubMed |
description | This double-blind randomized controlled trial with a crossover design analyzed the technical and clinical performance of three-unit monolithic ZrO(2) implant-fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs), prepared using two complete digital workflows (Test-1, Test-2) and one mixed analog–digital workflow (Control). Each of the 20 study patients received three iFDPs, resulting in 60 restorations for analysis. The quality of the restorations was assessed by analyzing laboratory cross-mounting and calculating the chairside adjustment time required during fitting. All iFDPs could be produced successfully with all three workflows. The highest cross-mounting success rate was observed for the original pairing iFDP/model of the Control group. Overall, 60% of iFDPs prepared with Test-1 workflow did not require chairside adjustment compared with 50% for Test-2 and 30% for Controls. The mean total chairside adjustment time, as the sum of interproximal, pontic, and occlusal corrections was 2.59 ± 2.51 min (Control), 2.88 ± 2.86 min (Test-1), and 3.87 ± 3.02 min (Test-2). All tested workflows were feasible for treatment with iFDPs in posterior sites on a soft tissue level type implant system. For clinical routine, it has to be considered that chairside adjustments may be necessary, at least in every second patient, independent on the workflow used. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8235369 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82353692021-06-27 A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO(2) Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows Gintaute, Aiste Weber, Karin Zitzmann, Nicola U. Brägger, Urs Ferrari, Marco Joda, Tim J Clin Med Article This double-blind randomized controlled trial with a crossover design analyzed the technical and clinical performance of three-unit monolithic ZrO(2) implant-fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs), prepared using two complete digital workflows (Test-1, Test-2) and one mixed analog–digital workflow (Control). Each of the 20 study patients received three iFDPs, resulting in 60 restorations for analysis. The quality of the restorations was assessed by analyzing laboratory cross-mounting and calculating the chairside adjustment time required during fitting. All iFDPs could be produced successfully with all three workflows. The highest cross-mounting success rate was observed for the original pairing iFDP/model of the Control group. Overall, 60% of iFDPs prepared with Test-1 workflow did not require chairside adjustment compared with 50% for Test-2 and 30% for Controls. The mean total chairside adjustment time, as the sum of interproximal, pontic, and occlusal corrections was 2.59 ± 2.51 min (Control), 2.88 ± 2.86 min (Test-1), and 3.87 ± 3.02 min (Test-2). All tested workflows were feasible for treatment with iFDPs in posterior sites on a soft tissue level type implant system. For clinical routine, it has to be considered that chairside adjustments may be necessary, at least in every second patient, independent on the workflow used. MDPI 2021-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8235369/ /pubmed/34208773 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10122661 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Gintaute, Aiste Weber, Karin Zitzmann, Nicola U. Brägger, Urs Ferrari, Marco Joda, Tim A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO(2) Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows |
title | A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO(2) Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows |
title_full | A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO(2) Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows |
title_fullStr | A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO(2) Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows |
title_full_unstemmed | A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO(2) Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows |
title_short | A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO(2) Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows |
title_sort | double-blind crossover rct analyzing technical and clinical performance of monolithic zro(2) implant fixed dental prostheses (ifdp) in three different digital workflows |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8235369/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34208773 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm10122661 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gintauteaiste adoubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT weberkarin adoubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT zitzmannnicolau adoubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT braggerurs adoubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT ferrarimarco adoubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT jodatim adoubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT gintauteaiste doubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT weberkarin doubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT zitzmannnicolau doubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT braggerurs doubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT ferrarimarco doubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows AT jodatim doubleblindcrossoverrctanalyzingtechnicalandclinicalperformanceofmonolithiczro2implantfixeddentalprosthesesifdpinthreedifferentdigitalworkflows |