Cargando…

Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One‐year follow‐up

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the required time of potential clinical adjustments of posterior screw‐retained monolithic zirconia implant retained crowns based on intraoral optical scanning (IOS) or conventional impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Derksen, Wiebe, Tahmaseb, Ali, Wismeijer, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453558/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34080238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13790
_version_ 1784570300639215616
author Derksen, Wiebe
Tahmaseb, Ali
Wismeijer, Daniel
author_facet Derksen, Wiebe
Tahmaseb, Ali
Wismeijer, Daniel
author_sort Derksen, Wiebe
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the required time of potential clinical adjustments of posterior screw‐retained monolithic zirconia implant retained crowns based on intraoral optical scanning (IOS) or conventional impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with posterior tissue level implants (Straumann RN) replacing solitary teeth were recruited. Of all patients, impressions were taken with both an IOS (3M(™) TDS) and a conventional (polyether) pick‐up impression. Randomization was performed after impression taking and patients were to receive either a crown based on the digital or the conventional impression. The time required for adjustments at placement was recorded. Additionally, restoration survival and mechanical complications with a follow‐up of one year were documented. RESULTS: Thirty two patients with 45 implants were included: 23 restorations in the test (IOS) and 22 in the control (conventional) group. The average adjustment time was 3.35 min (SD ± 3.38, range: 0–11 min) for the digital versus 6.09 min (SD ± 4.63, range: 0–18 min) for the conventional impressions (p = .039). A proper fit (no adjustments required) was achieved 39,1% in the digital and 18,2% conventional group respectively. All 45 restorations could be placed within the two planned appointments and only two minor mechanical complications occurred during the first year of function. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IOS resulted in shorter adjustment times at try‐in than conventional impressions for solitary CAD/CAM implant restorations. Screw‐retained solitary monolithic zirconia restorations on ti‐base abutments show low complication‐ and survival rates in the short term.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8453558
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84535582021-09-27 Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One‐year follow‐up Derksen, Wiebe Tahmaseb, Ali Wismeijer, Daniel Clin Oral Implants Res Original Articles OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to compare the required time of potential clinical adjustments of posterior screw‐retained monolithic zirconia implant retained crowns based on intraoral optical scanning (IOS) or conventional impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with posterior tissue level implants (Straumann RN) replacing solitary teeth were recruited. Of all patients, impressions were taken with both an IOS (3M(™) TDS) and a conventional (polyether) pick‐up impression. Randomization was performed after impression taking and patients were to receive either a crown based on the digital or the conventional impression. The time required for adjustments at placement was recorded. Additionally, restoration survival and mechanical complications with a follow‐up of one year were documented. RESULTS: Thirty two patients with 45 implants were included: 23 restorations in the test (IOS) and 22 in the control (conventional) group. The average adjustment time was 3.35 min (SD ± 3.38, range: 0–11 min) for the digital versus 6.09 min (SD ± 4.63, range: 0–18 min) for the conventional impressions (p = .039). A proper fit (no adjustments required) was achieved 39,1% in the digital and 18,2% conventional group respectively. All 45 restorations could be placed within the two planned appointments and only two minor mechanical complications occurred during the first year of function. CONCLUSIONS: The use of IOS resulted in shorter adjustment times at try‐in than conventional impressions for solitary CAD/CAM implant restorations. Screw‐retained solitary monolithic zirconia restorations on ti‐base abutments show low complication‐ and survival rates in the short term. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-06-25 2021-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8453558/ /pubmed/34080238 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13790 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Clinical Oral Implants Research published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Derksen, Wiebe
Tahmaseb, Ali
Wismeijer, Daniel
Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One‐year follow‐up
title Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One‐year follow‐up
title_full Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One‐year follow‐up
title_fullStr Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One‐year follow‐up
title_full_unstemmed Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One‐year follow‐up
title_short Randomized Clinical Trial comparing clinical adjustment times of CAD/CAM screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. One‐year follow‐up
title_sort randomized clinical trial comparing clinical adjustment times of cad/cam screw‐retained posterior crowns on ti‐base abutments created with digital or conventional impressions. one‐year follow‐up
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8453558/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34080238
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/clr.13790
work_keys_str_mv AT derksenwiebe randomizedclinicaltrialcomparingclinicaladjustmenttimesofcadcamscrewretainedposteriorcrownsontibaseabutmentscreatedwithdigitalorconventionalimpressionsoneyearfollowup
AT tahmasebali randomizedclinicaltrialcomparingclinicaladjustmenttimesofcadcamscrewretainedposteriorcrownsontibaseabutmentscreatedwithdigitalorconventionalimpressionsoneyearfollowup
AT wismeijerdaniel randomizedclinicaltrialcomparingclinicaladjustmenttimesofcadcamscrewretainedposteriorcrownsontibaseabutmentscreatedwithdigitalorconventionalimpressionsoneyearfollowup