Marginal Bone Level Changes in Full-Arch Rehabilitation: Digital Versus Analog Protocols—A 5-Year Retrospective Study

IF 4 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Pub Date : 2025-07-28 DOI:10.1111/cid.70080

Nicola De Angelis, Paolo Pesce, Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio, Giulia Santamaria, Oriana Spanu, Maria Menini

{"title":"Marginal Bone Level Changes in Full-Arch Rehabilitation: Digital Versus Analog Protocols—A 5-Year Retrospective Study","authors":"Nicola De Angelis, Paolo Pesce, Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio, Giulia Santamaria, Oriana Spanu, Maria Menini","doi":"10.1111/cid.70080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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, <i>t</i>-test <i>p</i>-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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Clinical Significance</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cid.70080","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70080","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Materials and Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Clinical Significance

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

全足弓康复的边缘骨水平改变：数字与模拟方案-一项5年回顾性研究

本回顾性研究比较了模拟印模与口内扫描在全弓即刻负荷康复中的临床结果。具体来说，它评估了不同时间间隔（种植体放置、加载、2年和5年）种植体周围边缘骨水平（MBL）的变化，以及机械和假体并发症的发生率。材料与方法本研究包括62例在2019年至2020年期间接受全弓康复并立即植入种植体的患者。患者分为模拟印模组和数字口内扫描组。所有患者均采用固定钛- pmma螺钉保留修复体进行修复。在关键时间点通过标准化口内x线片评估骨水平。记录的其他参数包括手术时间、假体并发症和假体失败。统计分析包括重复测量、方差分析和事后Bonferroni检验。结果随访5年。种植体成活率为99.6%。假体并发症无明显差异。模拟组MBL在基线时略高于数字组（平均值= 0.21,SD = 0.04，数字组平均值= 0.17,SD = 0.04， t检验p值<； 0.001）。尽管如此，在随访期间，总体骨质流失仍在临床可接受的范围内。与模拟方法相比，数字印象显着减少了程序时间。结论两种压印技术均获得满意的临床效果。数字印模显示了效率上的优势，但随着时间的推移，骨质流失会稍微增加。模拟印模仍然是全弓即时加载康复的可靠标准，尽管数字方法显示出改善患者体验的希望。需要进一步的随机、长期研究。数字印模为全弓即刻加载康复提供了更快、更舒适的工作流程，潜在地提高了患者的依从性。然而，它们与轻度骨质流失的关系值得进一步研究，以优化长期稳定性。

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

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

103

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.