Professor, Division of Fixed Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, University Clinics for Dental Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Senior Teaching and Research Assistant, Clinic of Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Material Science, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
J Prosthet Dent. 2019 Jan;121(1):69-75. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.04.021. Epub 2018 Jul 14.
Clinical trials are needed to evaluate digital and conventional technologies for providing fixed partial dentures.
The purpose of the first part of this clinical study was to test whether complete-arch digital scans were similar to or better than complete-arch conventional impressions regarding time efficiency and participant and clinician perceptions.
Ten participants in need of a posterior tooth-supported 3-unit fixed partial denture were included. Three intraoral digital scanners and subsequent workflows (Lava C.O.S.; 3M [Lava], iTero; Align Technology Inc [iTero], Cerec Bluecam; Dentsply Sirona [Cerec]) were compared with the conventional impression method using polyether (Permadyne; 3M) and the conventional workflow. A computer-generated randomization list was used to determine the sequence of the tested impression procedures for each participant. The time needed for the impression procedures, including the occlusal registration, was assessed. In addition, the participant and clinician perceptions of the comfort and difficulty of the impression were rated by means of visual analog scales. Data were analyzed with the nonparametric paired Wilcoxon test together with an appropriate Bonferroni correction to detect differences among the impression systems (α=.05).
The total time for the complete-arch impressions, including the preparation (powdering) and the occlusal registration, was shorter for the conventional impression than for the digital scans (Lava 1091 ±523 seconds, iTero 1313 ±418 seconds, Cerec 1702 ±558 seconds, conventional 658 ±181 seconds). The difference was statistically significant for 2 of the 3 digital scanners (iTero P=.001, Cerec P<.001). The clinicians preferred the conventional impression to the digital scans. Of the scanning systems, the system without the need for powdering was preferred to the systems with powdering. No impression method was clearly preferred over others by the participants.
For complete-arch impressions, the conventional impression procedures were objectively less time consuming and subjectively preferred by both clinicians and participants over digital scan procedures.
需要进行临床试验来评估数字和传统技术在提供固定局部义齿方面的应用。
本临床研究的第一部分旨在测试全口数字扫描在时间效率以及患者和临床医生的感知方面是否与全口传统印模相似或更好。
纳入 10 名需要后牙支持的 3 单位固定局部义齿的患者。使用三种口内数字扫描仪和随后的工作流程（Lava C.O.S.；3M [Lava]、iTero；Align Technology Inc [iTero]、Cerec Bluecam；Dentsply Sirona [Cerec]）与使用聚醚（Permadyne；3M）和传统工作流程的传统印模方法进行比较。使用计算机生成的随机列表来确定每个患者接受测试的印模程序的顺序。评估印模程序所需的时间，包括咬合记录。此外，通过视觉模拟量表评估患者和临床医生对印模舒适度和难度的感知。使用非参数配对 Wilcoxon 检验结合适当的 Bonferroni 校正来分析数据，以检测不同印模系统之间的差异（α=.05）。
全口印模（包括准备阶段（粉末化）和咬合记录）的总时间，传统印模比数字扫描短（Lava 1091±523 秒、iTero 1313±418 秒、Cerec 1702±558 秒、传统印模 658±181 秒）。对于 3 种数字扫描仪中的 2 种，差异具有统计学意义（iTero P=.001，Cerec P<.001）。临床医生更喜欢传统印模而不是数字扫描。在扫描系统中，无需粉末化的系统比需要粉末化的系统更受欢迎。没有一种印模方法明显优于其他方法。
对于全口印模，传统印模程序在客观上耗时更少，临床医生和患者在主观上都更喜欢传统印模程序而不是数字扫描程序。
