Clinical applicational comparison of digital impression and silicon rubber impression technique in posterior implant-supported single crown restoration
10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20210927-00442
- VernacularTitle:后牙种植单冠修复中数字化和硅橡胶印模技术的临床应用比较
- Author:
Xuan TANG
1
;
Shuyi WU
;
Xiujuan SHA
;
Lei LU
;
Yan LI
Author Information
1. 中山大学光华口腔医学院·附属口腔医院修复科·广东省口腔医学重点实验室，广州 510055
- Keywords:
Dental impression technique;
Dental implantation;
Dental prosthesis;
Crowns;
Patient satisfaction;
Silicone elastomers;
Digital technology
- From:
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2021;56(12):1224-1229
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical effect and satisfaction of partially edentulous patients restored with posterior implant-supported single crown by digital impression technique and traditional silicon rubber impression, in order to provide clinical reference.Methods:Sixty-four partially edentulous patients who visited the Department of Prosthodontics, Guanghua School of Stomatology, Hospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University between March 2018 and January 2021 were enrolled. There were 31 male and 33 female, and the age of the group of patients was (49.3±13.3) years. The 113 implants placed in this group of patients were divided into digital impression group ( n=70) and silicone rubber impression group ( n=43) according to different impression techniques, and were restored with screw-retained full zirconia single crown, and the patients were followed up for 3-36 months after treatment. The implant survival rate, upper prosthesis, peri-implant soft tissue status, marginal bone loss and patients satisfaction were recorded to evaluate the clinical effects of two impression techniques in posterior implant-supported single crown. Results:In sixty-four patients, digital impression accounted for 62% (40/64), and silicon rubber impression accounted for 38% (24/64), the survival rate of 113 implants was 100% (113/113). The prevalence of interproximal contact loss, food impaction and mechanical complication of the upper full zirconia single crown restorations were 22.7% (41/181), 8.0% (9/113) and 2.7% (3/113) separately. All the mechanical complications were abutment screw loosening. All patients maintained good oral hygiene status, the incidences of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis were 0.9% (1/113) and 4.4% (5/113) respectively. The marginal bone loss was (0.24±0.11) mm. The median of satisfaction visual analogue scale score in patients was 9-10, but no statistically significant differences of all the above results were observed between the two impression techniques ( P>0.05). Conclusions:The clinical effect of partially edentulous patients restored with posterior implant-supported single crown using two different impression techniques is good and the satisfaction of patients is high, but the long-term clinical effect remains to be further observed.
