Clinical oral implants research · 2019
Quantitative clinical adjustment analysis of posterior single implant crown in a chairside digital workflow: A randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Yifan, Tian Jiehua, Wei Donghao, Di Ping, Lin Ye
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the three-dimensional changes in quantity and morphology following clinical adjustment of a posterior single implant crown between chairside digital workflow (test) and hybrid digital workflow (control).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 33 participants were included for single-tooth replacement with screw-retained crowns in posterior sites of either the maxillary or mandible. A total of 17 participants were carried to a chairside digital workflow, receiving monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2)-crowns (test), while the remaining 16 participants were fitted with CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia superstructures and hand-layered ceramic veneering crowns (control). As each crown underwent intraoral scanning (3Shape TRIOS Color, 3Shape), 3D digital models were rendered. These scans were taken both before and after try-in. Clinical adjustment dimensional changes were measured by superimposing the optical scans of models within a reverse software (Geomagic Control 2014). Adjustment counts and amounts (from vertical dimension) between two workflows were assessed and compared. Time consumption was recorded for efficiency analysis.
RESULTS: All patients were successfully treated in both groups. The median maximum vertical adjustment (taking both occlusal and interproximal surfaces into consideration) was 237 μm ± 112 in the test group and 485 μm ± 195 in the control group (p < .0001), respectively. The median adjustment count was 2.00 ± 1.09 in test group and 3.00 ± 1.05 in control group (p = .001), respectively. The total active working time/ total time for two workflows was 92.3/113.7 min for the test group and 146.3/676.3 min for the control group, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The test group showed fewer adjustments and apparent precision on the occlusal surface compared with the control group with only a fifth of the consumption of a hybrid workflow.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 33 participants were included for single-tooth replacement with screw-retained crowns in posterior sites of either the maxillary or mandible. A total of 17 participants were carried to a chairside digital workflow, receiving monolithic lithium disilicate (LS2)-crowns (test), while the remaining 16 participants were fitted with CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia superstructures and hand-layered ceramic veneering crowns (control). As each crown underwent intraoral scanning (3Shape TRIOS Color, 3Shape), 3D digital models were rendered. These scans were taken both before and after try-in. Clinical adjustment dimensional changes were measured by superimposing the optical scans of models within a reverse software (Geomagic Control 2014). Adjustment counts and amounts (from vertical dimension) between two workflows were assessed and compared. Time consumption was recorded for efficiency analysis.
RESULTS: All patients were successfully treated in both groups. The median maximum vertical adjustment (taking both occlusal and interproximal surfaces into consideration) was 237 μm ± 112 in the test group and 485 μm ± 195 in the control group (p < .0001), respectively. The median adjustment count was 2.00 ± 1.09 in test group and 3.00 ± 1.05 in control group (p = .001), respectively. The total active working time/ total time for two workflows was 92.3/113.7 min for the test group and 146.3/676.3 min for the control group, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The test group showed fewer adjustments and apparent precision on the occlusal surface compared with the control group with only a fifth of the consumption of a hybrid workflow.