三维打印与研磨即刻临时全口修复体的存活率和成功率:回顾性分析

Barbara Sobczak, Piotr Majewski, Evgenii Egorenkov
{"title":"三维打印与研磨即刻临时全口修复体的存活率和成功率:回顾性分析","authors":"Barbara Sobczak, Piotr Majewski, Evgenii Egorenkov","doi":"10.1111/cid.13418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate and compare the survival rates of 3D-printed and chairside milled resin polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) immediate temporary provisional full-arch implant restorations using prosthetic survival as the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Records of 335 routine patients receiving 443 temporary six-implant retained maxillary or mandibular prosthetic restorations between January 2019 and January 2022 at a private clinic (Dr Sobczak Clinical Centre, Radosc, Poland) were considered for this retrospective analysis. The analysis compared prosthetic and implant failure rates between printed and milled restorations as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Patient-related and treatment-related characteristics between groups were compared using the Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U-test, respectively. Group-specific cumulative prosthetic survival was qualitatively and quantitively compared using Kaplan-Meier, generalized linear mixed models and univariate cox proportional hazard analyses. Prosthetic survival was set into context to implant survival using Chi-square tests. A multivariable cox proportional hazards model with frailty was used to identify confounding factors affecting prosthetic survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prosthetic failure rates of milled and printed temporary restorations were 13.01% and 11.25% over the average follow-up period of 307.7 ± 115.5 days, respectively. The corresponding 180-day cumulative prosthetic survival rates were 92.4% and 93%. Hazard ratios for the prosthetic failure of milled and printed restorations did not show a statistical difference (p = 0.794). Implant failure rates in restorations that experienced prosthetic failure (17.31%) were higher compared to restorations without failures (5.63%), with a 3.2 times significantly higher odds of failure for a prosthesis experiencing implant loss (p = 0.003). Gender, presence of teeth at treatment baseline, smoking, and bone augmentation were identified as confounding factors impacting prosthetic survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Chairside 3D-printed restorations may represent an equivalent treatment modality to established chairside milled restorations for immediate full-arch therapy. Provisional prosthetic survival may impact implant survival and treatment success.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Survival and Success of 3D-Printed Versus Milled Immediate Provisional Full-Arch Restorations: A Retrospective Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Barbara Sobczak, Piotr Majewski, Evgenii Egorenkov\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate and compare the survival rates of 3D-printed and chairside milled resin polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) immediate temporary provisional full-arch implant restorations using prosthetic survival as the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Records of 335 routine patients receiving 443 temporary six-implant retained maxillary or mandibular prosthetic restorations between January 2019 and January 2022 at a private clinic (Dr Sobczak Clinical Centre, Radosc, Poland) were considered for this retrospective analysis. The analysis compared prosthetic and implant failure rates between printed and milled restorations as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Patient-related and treatment-related characteristics between groups were compared using the Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U-test, respectively. Group-specific cumulative prosthetic survival was qualitatively and quantitively compared using Kaplan-Meier, generalized linear mixed models and univariate cox proportional hazard analyses. Prosthetic survival was set into context to implant survival using Chi-square tests. A multivariable cox proportional hazards model with frailty was used to identify confounding factors affecting prosthetic survival.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Prosthetic failure rates of milled and printed temporary restorations were 13.01% and 11.25% over the average follow-up period of 307.7 ± 115.5 days, respectively. The corresponding 180-day cumulative prosthetic survival rates were 92.4% and 93%. Hazard ratios for the prosthetic failure of milled and printed restorations did not show a statistical difference (p = 0.794). Implant failure rates in restorations that experienced prosthetic failure (17.31%) were higher compared to restorations without failures (5.63%), with a 3.2 times significantly higher odds of failure for a prosthesis experiencing implant loss (p = 0.003). Gender, presence of teeth at treatment baseline, smoking, and bone augmentation were identified as confounding factors impacting prosthetic survival.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Chairside 3D-printed restorations may represent an equivalent treatment modality to established chairside milled restorations for immediate full-arch therapy. Provisional prosthetic survival may impact implant survival and treatment success.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical implant dentistry and related research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-26\",\"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.13418\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13418","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的以修复体存活率为主要结果,评估和比较3D打印和椅旁研磨树脂聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯(PMMA)即刻临时全牙弓种植修复体的存活率:本次回顾性分析考虑了一家私人诊所(波兰拉多斯克索布扎克博士临床中心)在2019年1月至2022年1月期间接受443次临时六种植体固位上颌或下颌修复体修复的335名常规患者的记录。分析比较了印刷修复体和研磨修复体的修复失败率和种植体失败率,分别作为主要和次要结果。使用卡方检验(Chi-square test)和曼-惠特尼U检验(Mann-Whitney U-test)分别比较了各组患者相关特征和治疗相关特征。使用 Kaplan-Meier、广义线性混合模型和单变量 cox 比例危险分析对各组的累积修复体存活率进行定性和定量比较。假体存活率与种植体存活率之间的关系采用Chi-square检验。使用包含虚弱的多变量cox比例危险模型来确定影响修复体存活率的混杂因素:在平均 307.7 ± 115.5 天的随访期内,铣制和印制临时修复体的修复失败率分别为 13.01% 和 11.25%。相应的 180 天累积修复体存活率分别为 92.4% 和 93%。研磨修复体和印模修复体修复失败的危险比没有统计学差异(p = 0.794)。出现修复失败的修复体的种植体失败率(17.31%)高于未出现失败的修复体(5.63%),种植体缺失的修复体的失败几率是未出现失败修复体的3.2倍(p = 0.003)。性别、治疗基线时是否有牙齿、吸烟和骨增量被认为是影响修复体存活率的混杂因素:结论:椅旁三维打印修复体在即刻全牙弓治疗中可能是一种与已建立的椅旁研磨修复体相当的治疗模式。临时修复体的存活率可能会影响种植体的存活率和治疗的成功率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Survival and Success of 3D-Printed Versus Milled Immediate Provisional Full-Arch Restorations: A Retrospective Analysis.

Objective: To evaluate and compare the survival rates of 3D-printed and chairside milled resin polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) immediate temporary provisional full-arch implant restorations using prosthetic survival as the primary outcome.

Materials and methods: Records of 335 routine patients receiving 443 temporary six-implant retained maxillary or mandibular prosthetic restorations between January 2019 and January 2022 at a private clinic (Dr Sobczak Clinical Centre, Radosc, Poland) were considered for this retrospective analysis. The analysis compared prosthetic and implant failure rates between printed and milled restorations as primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Patient-related and treatment-related characteristics between groups were compared using the Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U-test, respectively. Group-specific cumulative prosthetic survival was qualitatively and quantitively compared using Kaplan-Meier, generalized linear mixed models and univariate cox proportional hazard analyses. Prosthetic survival was set into context to implant survival using Chi-square tests. A multivariable cox proportional hazards model with frailty was used to identify confounding factors affecting prosthetic survival.

Results: Prosthetic failure rates of milled and printed temporary restorations were 13.01% and 11.25% over the average follow-up period of 307.7 ± 115.5 days, respectively. The corresponding 180-day cumulative prosthetic survival rates were 92.4% and 93%. Hazard ratios for the prosthetic failure of milled and printed restorations did not show a statistical difference (p = 0.794). Implant failure rates in restorations that experienced prosthetic failure (17.31%) were higher compared to restorations without failures (5.63%), with a 3.2 times significantly higher odds of failure for a prosthesis experiencing implant loss (p = 0.003). Gender, presence of teeth at treatment baseline, smoking, and bone augmentation were identified as confounding factors impacting prosthetic survival.

Conclusion: Chairside 3D-printed restorations may represent an equivalent treatment modality to established chairside milled restorations for immediate full-arch therapy. Provisional prosthetic survival may impact implant survival and treatment success.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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