Cargando…
Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial
OBJECTIVES: To compare short-term outcomes after immediate restoration of a single implant in the esthetic zone with one-abutment one-time technique comparing a conventional (control) vs. a fully digital workflow (test). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen subjects were randomly assigned to the two grou...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8821739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35129763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00406-6 |
_version_ | 1784646463035277312 |
---|---|
author | Hanozin, Brieuc Li Manni, Lou Lecloux, Geoffrey Bacevic, Miljana Lambert, France |
author_facet | Hanozin, Brieuc Li Manni, Lou Lecloux, Geoffrey Bacevic, Miljana Lambert, France |
author_sort | Hanozin, Brieuc |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To compare short-term outcomes after immediate restoration of a single implant in the esthetic zone with one-abutment one-time technique comparing a conventional (control) vs. a fully digital workflow (test). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups, and a digital implant planning was performed for all. In the test group, a custom-made zirconia abutment and a CAD–CAM provisional crown were prepared prior to surgery; implants were placed using a s-CAIS guide allowing immediate restoration after surgery. In the control group, the implant was placed free-handed using a conventional surgical guide, and a custom-made zirconia abutment to support a stratified provisional crown was placed 10 days thereafter, based on a conventional impression. Implant accuracy (relative to the planning), the provisional restoration outcomes, as well as PROMs were assessed. RESULTS: The implant positioning showed higher accuracy with the s-CAIS surgical guide compared to free-handed surgery (angular deviation (AD): 2.41 ± 1.27° vs. 6.26 ± 3.98°, p < 0.014; entry point deviation (CGD): 0.65 ± 0.37 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.83 mm, p < 0.059; apical deviation (GAD): 1.36 ± 0.53 mm vs. 2.42 ± 1.02 mm, p < 0.014). The occlusion and interproximal contacts showed similar results for the two workflows (p = 0.7 and p = 0.69, respectively). The PROMs results were similar in both groups except for impression taking with intra-oral scanning preferred over conventional impressions (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Both workflows allowed implant placement and immediate/early restoration and displayed similar clinical and esthetic outcomes. The fully digital workflow was associated with a more accurate implant position relative to planning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results show that both conventional and digital workflow are predictive and provide similar clinical outcomes, with extra precision provided by digitalisation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8821739 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88217392022-02-16 Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial Hanozin, Brieuc Li Manni, Lou Lecloux, Geoffrey Bacevic, Miljana Lambert, France Int J Implant Dent Research OBJECTIVES: To compare short-term outcomes after immediate restoration of a single implant in the esthetic zone with one-abutment one-time technique comparing a conventional (control) vs. a fully digital workflow (test). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups, and a digital implant planning was performed for all. In the test group, a custom-made zirconia abutment and a CAD–CAM provisional crown were prepared prior to surgery; implants were placed using a s-CAIS guide allowing immediate restoration after surgery. In the control group, the implant was placed free-handed using a conventional surgical guide, and a custom-made zirconia abutment to support a stratified provisional crown was placed 10 days thereafter, based on a conventional impression. Implant accuracy (relative to the planning), the provisional restoration outcomes, as well as PROMs were assessed. RESULTS: The implant positioning showed higher accuracy with the s-CAIS surgical guide compared to free-handed surgery (angular deviation (AD): 2.41 ± 1.27° vs. 6.26 ± 3.98°, p < 0.014; entry point deviation (CGD): 0.65 ± 0.37 mm vs. 1.27 ± 0.83 mm, p < 0.059; apical deviation (GAD): 1.36 ± 0.53 mm vs. 2.42 ± 1.02 mm, p < 0.014). The occlusion and interproximal contacts showed similar results for the two workflows (p = 0.7 and p = 0.69, respectively). The PROMs results were similar in both groups except for impression taking with intra-oral scanning preferred over conventional impressions (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Both workflows allowed implant placement and immediate/early restoration and displayed similar clinical and esthetic outcomes. The fully digital workflow was associated with a more accurate implant position relative to planning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our results show that both conventional and digital workflow are predictive and provide similar clinical outcomes, with extra precision provided by digitalisation. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8821739/ /pubmed/35129763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00406-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Research Hanozin, Brieuc Li Manni, Lou Lecloux, Geoffrey Bacevic, Miljana Lambert, France Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial |
title | Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | digital vs. conventional workflow for one-abutment one-time immediate restoration in the esthetic zone: a randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8821739/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35129763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-022-00406-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hanozinbrieuc digitalvsconventionalworkflowforoneabutmentonetimeimmediaterestorationintheestheticzonearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT limannilou digitalvsconventionalworkflowforoneabutmentonetimeimmediaterestorationintheestheticzonearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT leclouxgeoffrey digitalvsconventionalworkflowforoneabutmentonetimeimmediaterestorationintheestheticzonearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT bacevicmiljana digitalvsconventionalworkflowforoneabutmentonetimeimmediaterestorationintheestheticzonearandomizedcontrolledtrial AT lambertfrance digitalvsconventionalworkflowforoneabutmentonetimeimmediaterestorationintheestheticzonearandomizedcontrolledtrial |