Lops Diego, Bressan Eriberto, Cea Nicolò, Sbricoli Luca, Guazzo Riccardo, Scanferla Massimo, Romeo Eugenio
Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic, School of Dentistry University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;28(1):43-55. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12171. Epub 2015 Sep 11.
The aim of this study was to transfer the provisional restoration emergence profile to the final implant-supported restoration and to buccal gingival margin (BGM) stability after 2 years of function.
A total of 33 patients were recruited for treatment of single gaps by means of 33 implant-supported restorations. Fixed provisional crowns were screwed to the fixture and adjusted until the complete peri-implant soft tissue maturation was achieved. After 12 weeks, a second fixture impression was taken by means of a pick-up customization technique in order to transfer the clinical aspect of the peri-implant soft tissues to the master cast. A definitive restoration was delivered. A standardized method from digital photographs was used to assess the gingival margin modification (BGM) from the provisional (P) to the definitive prosthesis installation at baseline (D0), and after 1 (D1) and 2 years (D2) of function. Also, marginal bone loss (MBL) was calculated after 1 (D1) and 2 years (D2) of definitive restoration function.
The BGM index at the time of the final restoration installation (D0) was 0.12 ± 0.33 mm if compared with the BGM position of the provisional restoration (P); it was of 0.12 ± 0.46 mm after 1-year of follow-up (D1) and of 0.31 ± 0.21 after 2 years of function (D2). No significant difference was calculated between measurements in different follow-up visits (p > 0.05). No significant MBL was measured between the baseline (D0) and the 1-year follow-up (p = 0.816) with a mean MBL value of 0.2 ± 0.1 mm. Similar result was calculated after 2 years (p = 0.684) with a mean MBL value of 0.3 ± 0.2.
A modified impression pick-up may be helpful to reproduce the gingival margin position from the provisional to the definitive restoration. Moreover, the gingival zenith position during the follow-up period seemed to be stable.
The modification of the standard impression pick-up technique may contribute to reproducing a natural emergence profile of esthetic implant prosthetic restorations (from the provisional to the definitive restoration.) With this technique, implant soft tissues stability around CAD-CAM (computer aided design-computer aided manufacturing) abutments can be easily obtained, and the customized abutment shape may better support the scalloped peri-implant soft tissues architecture, especially in anterior areas.
本研究的目的是将临时修复体的边缘轮廓转移至最终种植体支持的修复体,并评估其在功能行使2年后颊侧牙龈边缘(BGM)的稳定性。
共招募33例患者,采用33个种植体支持的修复体治疗单间隙。将固定临时冠拧到种植体上并进行调整,直至种植体周围软组织完全成熟。12周后,采用取模定制技术获取种植体第二次印模,以便将种植体周围软组织的临床情况转移至工作模型。戴入最终修复体。使用标准化的数码照片方法评估从基线时(D0)临时修复体(P)到最终修复体戴入时、以及功能行使1年(D1)和2年(D2)后牙龈边缘的变化(BGM)。此外,在最终修复体功能行使1年(D1)和2年(D2)后计算边缘骨吸收(MBL)。
与临时修复体(P)的BGM位置相比,最终修复体戴入时(D0)的BGM指数为0.12±0.33mm;随访1年(D1)后为0.12±0.46mm,功能行使2年(D2)后为0.31±0.21mm。不同随访时间的测量结果之间无显著差异(p>0.05)。基线(D0)与1年随访之间未测得显著的MBL(p=0.816),平均MBL值为0.2±0.1mm。2年后计算结果相似(p=0.684),平均MBL值为0.3±0.2。
改良的取模技术可能有助于从临时修复体到最终修复体再现牙龈边缘位置。此外,随访期间牙龈顶点位置似乎稳定。
标准取模技术的改良可能有助于再现美观种植修复体(从临时修复体到最终修复体)的自然边缘轮廓。采用该技术,可轻松获得CAD-CAM(计算机辅助设计-计算机辅助制造)基台周围种植体软组织的稳定性,定制基台形状可更好地支持扇贝形种植体周围软组织结构,尤其是在前牙区。