Vieira Samanta N V, Lourenço Matheus F, Pereira Rodrigo C, França Esdras C, Vilaça Ênio L, Silveira Rodrigo R, Silva Guilherme C
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 31270-901, MG, Brazil.
Private Practice, Belo Horizonte 30130-007, MG, Brazil.
Materials (Basel). 2023 Jun 4;16(11):4176. doi: 10.3390/ma16114176.
Obtaining accurate models and well-fitting prostheses during the fabrication of complete implant-supported prostheses has been a significant challenge. Conventional impression methods involve multiple clinical and laboratory steps that can lead to distortions, potentially resulting in inaccurate prostheses. In contrast, digital impressions may eliminate some of these steps, leading to better-fitting prostheses. Therefore, it is important to compare conventional and digital impressions for producing implant-supported prostheses. This study aimed to compare the quality of digital intraoral and conventional impressions by measuring the vertical misfit of implant-supported complete bars obtained using both types of techniques. Five digital impressions using an intraoral scanner and five impressions using elastomer were made in a four-implant master model. The plaster models produced with conventional impressions were scanned in a laboratory scanner to obtain virtual models. Screw-retained bars (n = five) were designed on the models and milled in zirconia. The bars fabricated using digital (DI) and conventional (CI) impressions were screwed to the master model, initially with one screw (DI1 and CI1) and later with four screws (DI4 and CI4), and were analyzed under a SEM to measure the misfit. ANOVA was used to compare the results ( < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the misfit between the bars fabricated using digital and conventional impressions when screwed with one (DI1 = 94.45 µm vs. CI1 = 101.90 µm: F = 0.096; = 0.761) or four screws (DI4 = 59.43 µm vs. CI4 = 75.62 µm: F = 2.655; = 0.139). Further, there were no differences when the bars were compared within the same group screwed with one or four screws (DI1 = 94.45 µm vs. DI4 = 59.43 µm: F = 2.926; = 0.123; CI1 = 101.90 µm vs. CI4 = 75.62 µm: F = 0.013; = 0.907). It was concluded that both impression techniques produced bars with a satisfactory fit, regardless of whether they were screwed with one or four screws.
在制作完全种植体支持的修复体过程中，获得精确的模型和贴合良好的修复体一直是一项重大挑战。传统的印模方法涉及多个临床和实验室步骤，可能会导致变形，从而可能导致修复体不准确。相比之下，数字印模可能会省去其中一些步骤，从而获得贴合度更好的修复体。因此，比较传统印模和数字印模对于制作种植体支持的修复体很重要。本研究旨在通过测量使用两种技术获得的种植体支持的完整杆的垂直不贴合度，比较数字口内印模和传统印模的质量。在一个四种植体主模型上制作了五次使用口内扫描仪的数字印模和五次使用弹性体的印模。用传统印模制作的石膏模型在实验室扫描仪中进行扫描以获得虚拟模型。在模型上设计了螺丝固位杆（n = 5）并在氧化锆中进行铣削。使用数字（DI）和传统（CI）印模制作的杆用螺丝固定到主模型上，最初用一个螺丝（DI1和CI1），后来用四个螺丝（DI4和CI4），并在扫描电子显微镜下进行分析以测量不贴合度。使用方差分析比较结果（<0.05）。当用一个螺丝（DI1 = 94.45 µm 对 CI1 = 101.90 µm：F = 0.096；P = 0.761）或四个螺丝（DI4 = 59.43 µm 对 CI4 = 75.62 µm：F = 2.655；P = 0.139）固定时，使用数字印模和传统印模制作的杆在不贴合度方面没有统计学上的显著差异。此外，当在同一组内比较用一个或四个螺丝固定的杆时也没有差异（DI1 = 94.45 µm 对 DI4 = 59.43 µm：F = 2.926；P = 0.123；CI1 = 101.90 µm 对 CI4 = 75.62 µm：F = 0.013；P = 0.907）。得出的结论是，两种印模技术制作的杆的贴合度都令人满意，无论它们是用一个还是四个螺丝固定。
