Effectiveness of the full digital flow in the confection of implant-supported single prostheses and comparative analysis between two techniques: with an abutment or direct. Cross-sectional cohort.
PDF

Palavras-chave

Implant-fixed prosthesis
Intraoral Scanner
CAD/CAM
Dental Implants
Prosthetic Abutments

Como Citar

Alves, S., Moreno de Freitas, R., & Sartori, I. A. de M. (2024). Effectiveness of the full digital flow in the confection of implant-supported single prostheses and comparative analysis between two techniques: with an abutment or direct. Cross-sectional cohort . Brazilian Journal of Implantology and Health Sciences, 6(3), 349–363. https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2024v6n3p349-363

Resumo

With technological advances in Dentistry, the search for more predictable, integrated, and agile planning and treatments increases. In Implantology, despite the digital flow being greatly encouraged, doubts remain about its technical success. Therefore, the aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the full digital flow using two techniques for the fabrication of implant prostheses: with an abutment or direct to the implant, comparatively evaluating the time required for interproximal adjustment to adapt the crowns, occlusal adjustment, and the need to return to the laboratory for corrections. The sample consisted of 46 patients who underwent the installation of 75 implants, treated at the ILAPEO School of Dentistry surgical clinic. They were all over 18, of both sexes and received implants in single edentulous spaces that required rehabilitation with crowns. These patients were divided into two groups, with Group I (G1), comprising 27 patients (38 implants) who had received abutments at the time of surgery, and Group II (G2) comprising 28 patients (37 implants) who had received healing caps, with 9 patients in common in both groups. In G1, scan bodies adapted to the abutments were used. In G2, they were directly adapted to the implants. The cases were scanned and sent to the laboratory. When the crowns were installed, the prosthesis adjustment data was recorded (in seconds), as well as the need to return to the laboratory for adjustments and corrections. The data from the groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney non-parametric test. There were no statistical differences in terms of occlusal and proximal adjustment time. The need to return prosthetic work to the laboratory was compared between the groups using the chi-squared test. The GraphPad Prism 8 software (San Diego, CA, USA) was used for the statistical analysis, and all tests were applied at a significance level of 5%. Data analysis leads to the conclusion that digital flow made it possible to obtain satisfactory implant-supported single crowns in both groups. No differences were found between the two techniques regarding the time taken to adapt to the mouth and the need to return to the laboratory.

https://doi.org/10.36557/2674-8169.2024v6n3p349-363
PDF

Referências

Sotto Maior BS, Filgueiras A, Gonçalves Pinto D, Ferrarez LL, de Oliveira MF, Freitas TA de C. Aplicabilidade clínica dos avanços da tecnologia CAD-CAM em Odontologia. Hu Rev. 2019; 44(1):29-34.

Dawood A, Marti BM, Sauret-Jackson V, Darwood A. 3D printing in dentistry. British Dental Jornal. 2015;219(11):521-529.

Alghazzawi TF, Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation. Journal of prosthodontic research. 2016;60(2):72-84.

Bósio JA, Del Santo M, Jacob HB. Odontologia digital contemporânea - escâners intraorais digitais. Orthod. Sci. Pract. 2017; 10(39):355-362.

Gjelvold B, Chrcanovic BR, Korduner EK, Collin-Bagewitz I. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression technique. A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2016;25(4):282-287.

Ahmed KE. We're going digital - the current state of CAD/CAM in prosthodontics. Primary Dental Journal. 2018;7(2):30-35.

Mizumoto RM, Ylmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120(3):343-352.

Joda T, Zarone F, Ferrari M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(124):3-9.

Samra APB, Morais E, Mazur RF, Vieira SR, Rached RN. CAD/CAM in dentistry–a critical review. Revista Odonto Ciência. 2016;31(3):140-4.

Duret F, Blouin JL, Nahmani L. Functional principles and technical applications of optical impressions in office practice. Cah. Prothese 1985; 13(50):73-110.

Logozzo SFG, Kilpelä A, Caponi M, Governi L, Blois L. A Comparative Analysis Of Intraoral 3d Digital Escâners For Restorative Dentistry. The Internet Journal of Medical Technology. 2008; 5(1).

Taneva E, Kusnoto B, Evan, CA. 3D Scanning, Imaging, and Printing in Orthodontics. IntechOpen, 2015; 147-88

Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14(10).

Keeling A, Wu J, Ferrari M. Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan. J Dent. 2017; 59:33-40.

Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Impl Res 2016;1-8.

Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral escâner tecnologies: a review to make a sucessful impression. J Healthc Eng. 2017.

Burzynski JÁ, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Fields HW Jr, Deguchi T. Comparison of digital intraoral escâners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018; 153(4):534-541.

Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. Journal of dentistry. 2015;43(2):201-208.

Atieh MA, Tawse-Smith A, Alsabeeha NHM, Ma S, Duncan WJ. The One Abutment-One Time Protocol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Periodontol. 2017 Nov;88(11):1173-1185.

Wang QQ, Dai R, Cao CY, Fang H, Han M, Li QL. One-time versus repeated abutment connection for platform-switched implant: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017 Oct 19;12(10):e0186385.

Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008 May 10;204(9):505-11.

Traczinski A, Manfrinato JPL, Tassi Junior PA, Sartori IAM. Digital workflow effectiveness: preliminary results. Research, Society and Development, [S. l.], v. 11, n. 8, p. e9911830598, 2022.

Berejuk HM, Shimizu RH, Sartori IAM, Valgas L, Tiossi R. Vertical microgap and passivity of fit of three-unit implant-supported frameworks fabricated using different techniques. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants, 2014;29(5), 1064-1070.

Russo LL, Caradonna G, Biancardino M, De Lillo A, Troiano G, Guida L. Digital versus conventional workflow for the fabrication of multiunit fixed prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of vertical marginal fit in controlled in vitro studies. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry, 2019;122(5), 435-440.

Rau CT, Olafsson VG, Delgado AJ, Ritter AV, Donovan TE. The quality of fixed prosthodontic impressions: An assessment of crown and bridge impressions received at commercial laboratories. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 Sep;148(9):654-660.

Stawarczyk B, Keul C, Eichberger M, Figge D, Edelhoff D, Lümkemann N. Three generations of zirconia: from veneered to monolithic. Part I. Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany: 1985), 2017a;48(5), 369-380.

Spitznagel FA, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC. CAD/CAM ceramic restorative materials for natural teeth. Journal of dental research, 2018;97(10), 1082- 1091.

Creative Commons License
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2024 Stephanie Alves, Rubens Moreno de Freitas, Ivete Aparecida de Mattias Sartori