International journal of computerized dentistry · 2025
Clinical assessment of maxillary screw-retained implant prostheses fabricated from digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions. A randomized controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Elawady Dina Mohamed, Denewar Mohamed, Alqutaibi Ahmed Yaseen, Ibrahim Wafaa Ibrahim
Аннотация
AIM: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the peri-implant marginal bone loss (MBL) and prosthodontic complications of maxillary screw-retained implant prostheses fabricated from digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight participants with edentulous maxillary arches were randomly selected and enrolled in two equal groups: Group I (conventional impression group, CIG); Group II (digital impression group, DIG). All patients were rehabilitated with a maxillary screw-retained implant prosthesis retained by six implants. Peri-implant MBL and prosthodontic complications were recorded at 6, 12, and 24 months. Data were collected and statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: Regarding the effect of time, there was a statistically significant increase in MBL at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups (P 0.001). Regarding the effect of groups, there was no statistically significant difference in MBL between CIG and DIG at 6, 12, and 24 months, where P = 0.083, 0.087, and 0.133, respectively. Prosthetic complications were recorded 19 times in CIG and 12 times in DIG, with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.303).
CONCLUSION: Digital full-arch implant impression is a reliable impression technique and may represent an alternative to conventional implant impression technique in the fabrication of maxillary screw-retained implant prostheses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight participants with edentulous maxillary arches were randomly selected and enrolled in two equal groups: Group I (conventional impression group, CIG); Group II (digital impression group, DIG). All patients were rehabilitated with a maxillary screw-retained implant prosthesis retained by six implants. Peri-implant MBL and prosthodontic complications were recorded at 6, 12, and 24 months. Data were collected and statistically analyzed.
RESULTS: Regarding the effect of time, there was a statistically significant increase in MBL at the 6-, 12-, and 24-month follow-ups (P 0.001). Regarding the effect of groups, there was no statistically significant difference in MBL between CIG and DIG at 6, 12, and 24 months, where P = 0.083, 0.087, and 0.133, respectively. Prosthetic complications were recorded 19 times in CIG and 12 times in DIG, with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.303).
CONCLUSION: Digital full-arch implant impression is a reliable impression technique and may represent an alternative to conventional implant impression technique in the fabrication of maxillary screw-retained implant prostheses.