Beck Florian, Zupancic Cepic Lana, Lettner Stefan, Moritz Andreas, Ulm Christian, Zechner Werner, Schedle Andreas
Division of Oral Surgery, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Division of Prosthodontics, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
J Clin Med. 2024 Jan 12;13(2):432. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020432.
This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of single posterior screw-retained monolithic implant crowns following a digital and conventional workflow and to report on the survival/complication rate after a mean 4-year follow-up.
Thirty patients with a single posterior tooth missing were rehabilitated with a bone-level implant. After a healing period of ≥3 months, they were subjected to both a digital and conventional workflow to fabricate two screw-retained monolithic implant crowns. The quantitative clinical adjustments to both crowns (intrasubject comparison) and a questionnaire were recorded at try-in. Thereafter, a crown of the digital and conventional workflows was randomly inserted. At the last follow-up, the marginal bone level (MBL), peri-implant health-related parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque, pocket probing depth (PPD)), and functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) were assessed. Furthermore, the implant survival and success rates and technical complications were evaluated.
A total of 27 patients were followed for a mean period of 4.23 ± 1.10 years. There was no significant difference between the digital and conventional workflows regarding clinical adjustments and questionnaire outcomes. More than twice as many participants recommended digital (n = 16) compared to conventional impressions (n = 7) to friends. The implant survival and success rate were 100% and 96.3%, respectively. Furthermore, two de-cementations and one fracture of the ti-base abutment occurred. There were no significant differences in BoP, plaque, and PPD metrics between the two groups. The changes in the MBL between implant crown insertion (baseline) and the last follow-up were 0.07 ± 0.19 mm and 0.34 ± 0.62 mm in the digital and conventional groups, respectively ( = 0.195). The mean overall FIPS score was 8.11 ± 1.37 (range: 5-10).
The clinical and radiographic outcomes of single screw-retained monolithic implant crowns were similar between both workflows after a mean of 4 years of service. The patients did not clearly prefer an impression technique for their restoration, although they would recommend the digital impression more often to friends. Thus, decision regarding clinical workflows may be based on the patient's and/or clinician's preference.
本研究旨在比较数字化和传统工作流程下单颗后牙种植体单冠修复的临床和影像学结果，并报告平均4年随访后的种植体生存率/并发症发生率。
30例单颗后牙缺失患者采用骨水平种植体进行修复。经过≥3个月的愈合期后，对他们分别采用数字化和传统工作流程制作两颗螺丝固位单冠修复体。在试戴时记录对两颗修复体的临床定量调整情况（受试者内比较）并进行问卷调查。此后，随机植入数字化和传统工作流程制作的修复体各一枚。在最后一次随访时，评估边缘骨水平（MBL）、种植体周围与健康相关的参数（探诊出血（BoP）、菌斑、牙周袋探诊深度（PPD））以及功能性种植修复评分（FIPS）。此外，评估种植体的生存率、成功率及技术并发症。
共对27例患者进行了平均4.23±1.10年的随访。数字化和传统工作流程在临床调整和问卷调查结果方面无显著差异。与传统印模（n = 7）相比，推荐数字化印模（n = 16）给朋友的参与者多出两倍多。种植体生存率和成功率分别为100%和96.3%。此外，发生了2次基台脱粘和1次钛基台折断。两组之间在BoP、菌斑和PPD指标上无显著差异。数字化组和传统组种植体单冠植入时（基线）至最后一次随访时MBL的变化分别为0.07±0.19mm和0.34±0.62mm（P = 0.195）。FIPS总评分均值为8.11±1.37（范围：5 - 10）。
在平均使用4年后，两种工作流程下单颗螺丝固位单冠修复体的临床和影像学结果相似。患者对于修复时的印模技术没有明显偏好，不过他们更常向朋友推荐数字化印模。因此，临床工作流程的决策可基于患者和/或临床医生的偏好。
