Kaushik Smriti, Rathee Manu, Jain Prachi, Malik Sanju, Agarkar Vipul, Alam Maqbul
Department of Prosthodontics, Post Graduate Institute of Dental Sciences, Pt. B.D. Sharma University of Health Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India.
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2023 Oct 26;20:109. eCollection 2023.
The purpose of this study was to conduct a randomized controlled clinical trial to compare and evaluate the effect of provisional restorations fabricated by two techniques, namely, conventional and three-dimensional (3D) printing processes on the peri-implant hard and soft tissues over early nonfunctional loaded implants in the mandibular posterior region.
A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted across 24 subjects broadly divided into two groups with 12 dental implants each, i.e., GpIC with conventionally fabricated provisional restoration and GpIID with 3D printed fabricated provisional restoration. The prosthetic phase was carried out at 2 weeks, and subjects were evaluated at baseline (at the time of prosthesis placement), 2 months, and 4 months for peri-implant marginal bone level, mucosal suppuration, sulcular probing depth, and modified sulcular bleeding index. Patient satisfaction was assessed using 5-item questionnaires at 4 months. The intragroup comparison for all the data was done using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The intergroup comparison for all the data was done using Mann-Whitney -test. The comparison of frequency of responses between GpIC and GpIID was done using Chi-square test. < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.
Nonsignificant difference was observed in all the hard and soft tissue parameters between the groups at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months ( > 0.05). Improvement in bleeding on probing was found to be greater around dental implants restored with 3D printed provisional restoration than dental implants restored with conventionally fabricated provisional restoration from baseline to 4 months of follow-up, and the difference in finding was statistically significant ( < 0.05). There was a statistically nonsignificant difference seen for the frequencies between the groups ( > 0.05) for all questions related to patient satisfaction.
The effect of conventionally fabricated and 3D printed provisional restorations on peri-implant hard and soft tissues was comparable to each other on an early nonfunctionally loaded implant in the mandibular posterior region.
本研究的目的是进行一项随机对照临床试验，以比较和评估通过两种技术制作的临时修复体，即传统技术和三维（3D）打印工艺，对下颌后牙区早期非功能性负载种植体周围软硬组织的影响。
对24名受试者进行了一项随机对照临床试验，大致分为两组，每组12颗牙种植体，即采用传统方法制作临时修复体的GpIC组和采用3D打印制作临时修复体的GpIID组。修复阶段在2周时进行，在基线（修复体放置时）、2个月和4个月时对受试者的种植体周围边缘骨水平、黏膜化脓情况、龈沟探诊深度和改良龈沟出血指数进行评估。在4个月时使用5项问卷评估患者满意度。所有数据的组内比较采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验。所有数据的组间比较采用Mann-Whitney检验。GpIC组和GpIID组之间反应频率的比较采用卡方检验。P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
在基线、2个月和4个月时，两组之间在所有软硬组织参数上均未观察到显著差异（P>0.05）。从基线到随访4个月，发现用3D打印临时修复体修复的牙种植体周围探诊出血的改善程度大于用传统方法制作临时修复体修复的牙种植体，且这一发现的差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。在所有与患者满意度相关的问题上，两组之间的频率差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。
在早期非功能性负载的下颌后牙区种植体上，传统制作和3D打印的临时修复体对种植体周围软硬组织的影响相当。
