Fully digital versus conventional workflow: Are removable complete overdentures equally good? A randomized crossover trial.

Thomas Van de Winkel, Frans Delfos, Olleke van der Heijden, Ewald Bronkhorst, Luc Verhamme, Gert Meijer
{"title":"Fully digital versus conventional workflow: Are removable complete overdentures equally good? A randomized crossover trial.","authors":"Thomas Van de Winkel, Frans Delfos, Olleke van der Heijden, Ewald Bronkhorst, Luc Verhamme, Gert Meijer","doi":"10.1111/cid.13398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Implant-supported removable complete overdentures (IODs) are a common treatment in case of edentulism and malfunctioning of the conventional denture. Manufacturing IODs in a conventional way (C-IODs) is time-consuming, but in a digital workflow, this can be done in three sessions. Digitally produced IODs (3D-IODs) are also more advantageous than C-IODs because lost or broken 3D-IODs can be swiftly reproduced as the digital design is always available.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To prove in a non-inferiority study, with a margin of 0.3 point per Oral Health Impact Profile-20 (OHIP-20) question, that IODs made according to a fully digital workflow (3D-IODs), function as good as C-IODs with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This randomized crossover study included 36 fully edentulous patients who showed extreme resorption of the maxillary alveolar process, making denture retention difficult. After a maxillary bone augmentation and the installation of 4-6 implants, each patient wore both types of IOD for 1 year each, with the order reversed in two subsets of patients. The 3D-IODs and C-IODs were fabricated in advance for both jaws (at least two mandibular implants were already present). The OHIP-20 survey was performed at baseline, after 1 year (before the IOD switch), and after 2 years to determine patient satisfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS). The general health status was assessed using the Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the PROMs, patients preferred the 3D-IOD: the improvement on the overall OHIP scale (0-4), expressed as a mean, was 0.26 points greater than for the C-IOD (p < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1-100) with an increase of 7.37 points (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item \"emotional well-being,\" the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (p = 0.033).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Implant-supported removable complete overdentures (IODs) are a common treatment in case of edentulism and malfunctioning of the conventional denture. Manufacturing IODs in a conventional way (C-IODs) is time-consuming, but in a digital workflow, this can be done in three sessions. Digitally produced IODs (3D-IODs) are also more advantageous than C-IODs because lost or broken 3D-IODs can be swiftly reproduced as the digital design is always available.

Purpose: To prove in a non-inferiority study, with a margin of 0.3 point per Oral Health Impact Profile-20 (OHIP-20) question, that IODs made according to a fully digital workflow (3D-IODs), function as good as C-IODs with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Materials and methods: This randomized crossover study included 36 fully edentulous patients who showed extreme resorption of the maxillary alveolar process, making denture retention difficult. After a maxillary bone augmentation and the installation of 4-6 implants, each patient wore both types of IOD for 1 year each, with the order reversed in two subsets of patients. The 3D-IODs and C-IODs were fabricated in advance for both jaws (at least two mandibular implants were already present). The OHIP-20 survey was performed at baseline, after 1 year (before the IOD switch), and after 2 years to determine patient satisfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS). The general health status was assessed using the Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire.

Results: Regarding the PROMs, patients preferred the 3D-IOD: the improvement on the overall OHIP scale (0-4), expressed as a mean, was 0.26 points greater than for the C-IOD (p < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1-100) with an increase of 7.37 points (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item "emotional well-being," the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (p = 0.033).

Conclusion: Compared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.

全数字化与传统工作流程:可摘全口覆盖义齿的效果是否一样好?随机交叉试验。
导言:种植体支持的可摘全口覆盖义齿(IOD)是一种常见的治疗方法,用于治疗缺牙症和传统义齿的故障。用传统方法(C-IODs)制作 IODs 非常耗时,但在数字化工作流程中,只需三次就能完成。数字制作的 IOD(3D-IOD)也比 C-IOD 更具优势,因为丢失或损坏的 3D-IOD 可以快速复制,因为数字设计始终可用。目的:在一项非劣效性研究中,以每个口腔健康影响档案-20(OHIP-20)问题 0.3 分的差值证明,根据全数字工作流程制作的 IOD(3D-IOD)在患者报告结果测量(PROM)方面与 C-IOD 一样好:这项随机交叉研究包括 36 名完全无牙颌的患者,他们的上颌骨牙槽突极度吸收,导致义齿难以固位。在进行上颌骨增量手术并安装 4-6 个种植体后,每位患者分别佩戴两种类型的 IOD 1 年,其中两组患者的佩戴顺序相反。3D-IOD和C-IOD是事先为两个下颌制作的(至少已有两个下颌种植体)。分别在基线期、1年后(IOD转换前)和2年后进行OHIP-20调查,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)确定患者的满意度。一般健康状况采用简表(SF-36)问卷进行评估:结果:在PROMs方面,患者更倾向于3D-IOD:OHIP总评分(0-4分)的平均值比C-IOD高出0.26分(p 结论:与传统的C-IOD相比,3D-IOD的患者满意度更高:与传统制作的 C-IOD 相比,全数字化制作的 3D-IOD 的 OHIP-20 和满意度评分明显更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信