Comparison of digital scanning and conventional impression taking for implant-supported prostheses

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-49
Author(s):  
R. V. Studenikin ◽  
A. A. Mamedov

The effect of discrepancies between digital scans and conventional impressions on the clinical performance of a permanent restoration has not been fully understood.Thirty patients received conventional impressions and digital scans of a single implant restoration. Two crowns were made for the same implant using both methods. The time taken for each procedure was recorded. After analyzing the accuracy and effectiveness of both crowns, the best one was placed. A questionnaire was conducted to assess the preferences and comfort when using crowns made by one method or another.The total time for the traditional impression technique was 15 minutes, while the time for the digital scanning technique was significantly less – 10 minutes.The preparation time, including the disinfection of the silicone impressions, their transportation to the laboratory, the casting of the impressions, the hardening of the plaster, as well as the preparation of the model by the technician, was 4 hours for conventional impressions.The timing for sending the STL file and modeling the structure was less than 2 hours for the digital scan method. The production time of crowns takes 3 hours for both conventional impressions and digital ones.Of all crowns selected for placement, 46.7% were made from conventional impressions and 53.3% from digital scans. Participants preferred the digital scanning technique (89%) over the traditional impression-taking technique (11%).The data from this study suggest that digital scanning and CAD/CAM technology may be more effective and better accepted by study par-ticipants for a single implant restoration than conventional impressions and plaster casts.

2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
pp. 354
Author(s):  
Hyeon Kang ◽  
Nu-Ri Seo ◽  
Sang-Won Park ◽  
Hyun-Pil Lim ◽  
Kwi-Dug Yun ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. 265-265
Author(s):  
Marco Ferrari ◽  
Rengo Carlo ◽  
Eugenio Romeo ◽  
Heydecke Guido ◽  
Pozzi Alessandro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Celina Inês Miranda Brito Leitão ◽  
Gustavo Vicentis de Oliveira Fernandes ◽  
Luís Pedro Pereira Azevedo ◽  
Filipe Miguel Araújo ◽  
Helena Donato ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (9) ◽  
pp. 505-510
Author(s):  
Veerasamy Yengopal

1. Prosthetic outcomes and clinical performance of CAD-CAM monolithic zirconia versus porcelain-fused-to-metal implant crowns in the molar region - 2. The effect of using a mobile application to improve oral hygiene among adolescents receiving fixed orthodontic treatment: A RCT


2016 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.G. Wittneben ◽  
J. Gavric ◽  
U.C. Belser ◽  
M.M. Bornstein ◽  
T. Joda ◽  
...  

Patients’ esthetic expectations are increasing, and the options of the prosthetic pathways are currently evolving. The objective of this randomized multicenter clinical trial was to assess and compare the esthetic outcome and clinical performance of anterior maxillary all-ceramic implant crowns (ICs) based either on prefabricated zirconia abutments veneered with pressed ceramics or on CAD/CAM zirconia abutments veneered with hand buildup technique. The null hypothesis was that there is no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Forty implants were inserted in sites 14 to 24 (FDI) in 40 patients in 2 centers, the Universities of Bern and Geneva, Switzerland. After final impression, 20 patients were randomized into group A, restored with a 1-piece screw-retained single crown made of a prefabricated zirconia abutment with pressed ceramic as the veneering material using the cut-back technique, or group B using an individualized CAD/CAM zirconia abutment (CARES abutment; Institut Straumann AG) with a hand buildup technique. At baseline, 6 mo, and 1 y clinical, esthetic and radiographic parameters were assessed. Group A exhibited 1 dropout patient and 1 failure, resulting in a survival rate of 94.7% after 1 y, in comparison to 100% for group B. No other complications occurred. Clinical parameters presented stable and healthy peri-implant soft tissues. Overall, no or only minimal crestal bone changes were observed with a mean DIB (distance from the implant shoulder to the first bone-to-implant contact) of −0.15 mm (group A) and 0.12 mm (group B) at 1 y. There were no significant differences at baseline, 6 mo, and 1 y for DIB values between the 2 groups. Pink esthetic score (PES) and white esthetic score (WES) values at all 3 examinations indicated stability over time for both groups and pleasing esthetic outcomes. Both implant-supported prosthetic pathways represent a valuable treatment option for the restoration of single ICs in the anterior maxilla ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02905838).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document