IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i5p829-d211818.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Author

Listed:
  • Paolo Cappare

    (Dental School, Vita-Salute University and IRCCS San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy)

  • Gianpaolo Sannino

    (Department of Dentistry, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, 20132 Milan, Italy)

  • Margherita Minoli

    (Dental School, Vita-Salute University and IRCCS San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy)

  • Pietro Montemezzi

    (Oral Surgery Specialization School, Vita-Salute University and IRCCS San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy)

  • Francesco Ferrini

    (Dental School, Vita-Salute University and IRCCS San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Background : The objective of this study was to compare conventional versus digital impressions for Full-Arch maxillary rehabilitations. Methods : Patients selected for this study were treated with full-arch screw-retained rehabilitations supported by six immediately loaded dental implants. Patients have been scheduled randomly into control (conventional impression group, CIG) and test (digital impression group, DIG) groups respectively for a fully conventional workflow and a fully digital workflow. In both groups, within 24 h, temporary prostheses were delivered. Four months after the implant positioning, the two groups dealt with the fabrication of definitive restorations: conventional pick-up was performed in the control group, and definitive digital impressions were carried out in the test group. The time involved following these two procedures was recorded. Patients underwent intraoral digital radiographs to evaluate the accuracy of the framework-implant connection, check for the presence of voids at the bar-implant connection and measure bone level. Criteria used to assess success at the prosthetic level were the occurrence of prosthetic maintenance, the absence of fractures of the acrylic resin superstructure and voids. Results : A total of 50 patients received immediately loaded prostheses supported by six implants (total 300 implants). A fixture and prosthetic survival rate of 100% was observed. All digital X-ray examinations revealed a bar-implant connection accuracy and no voids. Differences that were not statistically significant ( p > 0.05) in marginal bone loss were found between control and test groups. Significantly less time was spent to perform digital impression procedure ( p < 0.05). Conclusions : Clinical and radiological results of the test group advocate a satisfactory accuracy and predictability of the intraoral scanner (IOS) to be a reliable alternative in clinical practice for implant full-arch rehabilitations and suggest fabrication of definitive restorations with a successful marginal fit precision.

Suggested Citation

  • Paolo Cappare & Gianpaolo Sannino & Margherita Minoli & Pietro Montemezzi & Francesco Ferrini, 2019. "Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:5:p:829-:d:211818
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/5/829/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/5/829/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hang-Nga Mai & Jaeil Kim & Youn-Hee Choi & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "Accuracy of Portable Face-Scanning Devices for Obtaining Three-Dimensional Face Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. José Vicente Ríos-Santos & Gregorio Tello-González & Pedro Lázaro-Calvo & Francisco Javier Gil Mur & Blanca Ríos-Carrasco & Ana Fernández-Palacín & Mariano Herrero-Climent, 2020. "One Abutment One Time: A Multicenter, Prospective, Controlled, Randomized Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Barbara Sobczak & Piotr Majewski, 2022. "An Integrated Fully Digital Prosthetic Workflow for the Immediate Full-Arch Restoration of Edentulous Patients—A Case Report," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-11, March.
    4. María Isabel Albanchez-González & Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann & Jesús Peláez-Rico & Carlos López-Suárez & Verónica Rodríguez-Alonso & María Jesús Suárez-García, 2022. "Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.
    5. Massimo Robiony & Elena Bocin & Salvatore Sembronio & Fabio Costa & Vittorio Bresadola & Alessandro Tel, 2020. "Redesigning the Paradigms of Clinical Practice for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the Era of Lockdown for COVID-19: From Tradition to Telesemeiology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-12, September.
    6. Roberto Lo Giudice & Fausto Famà, 2020. "Health Care and Health Service Digital Revolution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-2, July.
    7. Luca Lavorgna & Gabriele Cervino & Luca Fiorillo & Giovanni Di Leo & Giuseppe Troiano & Marco Ortensi & Luigi Galantucci & Marco Cicciù, 2019. "Reliability of a Virtual Prosthodontic Project Realized through a 2D and 3D Photographic Acquisition: An Experimental Study on the Accuracy of Different Digital Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Francesca Cattoni & Luca Chirico & Alberto Merlone & Michele Manacorda & Raffaele Vinci & Enrico Felice Gherlone, 2021. "Digital Smile Designed Computer-Aided Surgery versus Traditional Workflow in “All on Four” Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial with 4-Years Follow-Up," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-18, March.
    9. Se-Won Park & Ra Gyoung Yoon & Hyunwoo Lee & Heon-Jin Lee & Yong-Do Choi & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "Impacts of Thresholds of Gray Value for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography 3D Reconstruction on the Accuracy of Image Matching with Optical Scan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-11, September.
    10. Naia Bustamante-Hernández & Jose María Montiel-Company & Carlos Bellot-Arcís & José Félix Mañes-Ferrer & María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz & Rubén Agustín-Panadero & Lucía Fernández-Estevan, 2020. "Clinical Behavior of Ceramic, Hybrid and Composite Onlays. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-23, October.
    11. Jaime Orejas-Perez & Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez & Ignacio Ortiz-Collado & Israel J. Thuissard & Andrea Santamaria-Laorden, 2022. "In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-17, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:5:p:829-:d:211818. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.