De Angelis Nicola, Pesce Paolo, Caponio Vito Carlo Alberto, Santamaria Giulia, Spanu Oriana, Menini Maria
Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics, University of Genova, Genova, Italy.
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2025 Aug;27(4):e70080. doi: 10.1111/cid.70080.
This retrospective study compares the clinical outcomes of analog impressions versus intraoral scanning in full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations. Specifically, it evaluates peri-implant marginal bone level (MBL) changes at different time intervals (implant placement, loading, and at 2 and 5 years), as well as rates of mechanical and prosthetic complications.
The study included 62 patients who underwent full-arch rehabilitation with immediate implant placement between 2019 and 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: analog impression and digital intraoral scanning. All patients were rehabilitated with fixed titanium-PMMA screw retained restorations. Bone level was assessed through standardized intraoral radiographs at key time points. Additional parameters recorded included procedural time, prosthetic complications, and implant failures. Statistical analyses involved repeated measures ANOVA and post hoc Bonferroni tests.
The follow-up period was 5 years. Implant survival was 99.6%. No significant differences were found in prosthetic complications. MBL was slightly higher in the analog group at baseline (mean = 0.21, SD = 0.04 vs. digital mean = 0.17, SD = 0.04, t-test p-value < 0.001) than in the digital group. Despite this, the overall bone loss remained within clinically acceptable limits during the follow-up period. Digital impressions significantly reduced procedural time compared to analog methods.
Both impression techniques provided satisfactory clinical outcomes. Digital impressions demonstrated efficiency advantages but were associated with slightly greater bone loss over time. Analog impressions remain a reliable standard for full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations, though digital methods show promise for improved patient experience. Further randomized, long-term studies are needed.
Digital impressions offer a faster and more comfortable workflow for full-arch immediate loading rehabilitations, potentially improving patient compliance. However, their association with slightly greater bone loss warrants further investigation to optimize long-term stability.
本回顾性研究比较了全牙弓即刻负重修复中传统印模与口内扫描的临床效果。具体而言，评估了不同时间间隔（种植体植入、加载以及2年和5年时）种植体周围边缘骨水平（MBL）的变化，以及机械和修复并发症的发生率。
该研究纳入了2019年至2020年间接受全牙弓即刻种植修复的62例患者。患者分为两组：传统印模组和数字化口内扫描组。所有患者均采用固定钛-聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯螺丝固位修复体进行修复。在关键时间点通过标准化口内X光片评估骨水平。记录的其他参数包括操作时间、修复并发症和种植体失败情况。统计分析采用重复测量方差分析和事后Bonferroni检验。
随访期为5年。种植体存活率为99.6%。修复并发症方面未发现显著差异。传统印模组基线时的MBL略高于数字化组（平均值=0.21，标准差=0.04；数字化组平均值=0.17，标准差=0.04，t检验p值<0.001）。尽管如此，随访期间总体骨丢失仍在临床可接受范围内。与传统方法相比，数字化印模显著缩短了操作时间。
两种印模技术均提供了满意的临床效果。数字化印模显示出效率优势，但随着时间推移骨丢失略多。传统印模仍是全牙弓即刻负重修复的可靠标准，不过数字化方法有望改善患者体验。需要进一步进行随机、长期研究。
数字化印模为全牙弓即刻负重修复提供了更快、更舒适的工作流程，可能提高患者的依从性。然而，其与略多的骨丢失之间的关联值得进一步研究，以优化长期稳定性。
