Thomas Van de Winkel, Frans Delfos, Olleke van der Heijden, Ewald Bronkhorst, Luc Verhamme, Gert Meijer
{"title":"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。","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":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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).</p>\n \n <p>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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1–100) with an increase of 7.37 points (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item “emotional well-being,” the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (<i>p</i> = 0.033).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Compared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11739062/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>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>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Purpose</h3>\\n \\n <p>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>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>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).</p>\\n \\n <p>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>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>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 (<i>p</i> < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1–100) with an increase of 7.37 points (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item “emotional well-being,” the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (<i>p</i> = 0.033).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Compared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50679,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11739062/pdf/\",\"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.13398\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.13398","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}
Fully digital versus conventional workflow: Are removable complete overdentures equally good? A randomized crossover trial
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
