Department of Oral Implantology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, China.
J Prosthodont. 2024 Aug;33(7):637-644. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13851. Epub 2024 Mar 25.
This is a clinical study to compare immediate and staged impression methods in a complete digital workflow for single-unit implants in the posterior area.
Sixty patients requiring single-unit implant crowns were enrolled. Forty patients were assigned to the test group, immediate digital impression after implant surgery with crown delivery 4 months later. The remaining 20 patients were assigned to the control group, staged digital impressions 4 months after implant surgery, and crown delivery 1 month later. Both workflows involved free-model CAD-CAM crown fabrications. The crowns were scanned before and after clinical adjustment using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS Color; 3Shape). Two 3D digital models were trimmed and superimposed to evaluate the dimensional changes using Geomagic Control software. Chairside times for the entire workflow were recorded. Kruskal-Wallis was performed to compare crown adjustments between two groups, while One-way ANOVA was used to compare chairside time durations between the test and control groups.
All crowns were delivered without refabrication. The average maximum occlusion adjustment of crowns was -353.2 ± 207.1 μm in the test group and -212.7 ± 150.5 μm in the control group (p = 0.02). The average area of occlusal adjustment, measured as an area of deviation larger than 100 μm, was 14.8 ± 15.3 and 8.4 ± 8.1 mm in the test and control groups, respectively (p = 0.056). There were no significant differences in the mesial and distal contact adjustment amounts, or the maximum deviations of the proximal area, between the two groups. The mean chair-side time was 50.25 ± 13.48 and 51.20 ± 5.34 min in the test and control groups, respectively (p = 0.763).
The immediate impression method in the digital workflow for single-unit implants required more occlusal adjustments of crowns but showed similar chairside times compared to the staged impression method.
本研究旨在比较在单牙种植的全数字化流程中，即刻取模和分阶段取模两种方法的临床效果。
本研究共纳入 60 名需要单牙种植体冠修复的患者。40 名患者被分配到实验组，在种植手术后即刻进行数字化印模，4 个月后进行冠修复。其余 20 名患者被分配到对照组，在种植手术后 4 个月进行分阶段数字化印模，1 个月后进行冠修复。两种工作流程均涉及自由形态 CAD-CAM 冠修复体制作。在临床调整前后，使用口内扫描仪（TRIOS Color；3Shape）对冠进行扫描。使用 Geomagic Control 软件对两个 3D 数字模型进行修剪和叠加，以评估尺寸变化。记录整个工作流程的椅旁时间。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验比较两组的冠调整情况，采用 One-way ANOVA 检验比较实验组和对照组的椅旁时间。
所有的冠均无需重新制作。实验组冠的最大咬合调整平均值为-353.2 ± 207.1 μm，对照组为-212.7 ± 150.5 μm（p = 0.02）。实验组和对照组的咬合调整面积（超过 100 μm 的偏差面积）平均值分别为 14.8 ± 15.3 和 8.4 ± 8.1 mm（p = 0.056）。两组间近远中接触调整量和近中区域最大偏差无显著差异。实验组和对照组的椅旁时间平均值分别为 50.25 ± 13.48 和 51.20 ± 5.34 min（p = 0.763）。
与分阶段印模方法相比，数字化工作流程中单牙种植体的即刻印模方法需要更多的冠咬合调整，但椅旁时间相似。
