Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira, Vitória Ramos Medeiros, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos, Annie Karoline Bezerra de Medeiros, Burak Yilmaz, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro
{"title":"全弓种植体支撑固定假体的常规和数字印模:时间、数量、效果和患者满意度。","authors":"Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira, Vitória Ramos Medeiros, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos, Annie Karoline Bezerra de Medeiros, Burak Yilmaz, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro","doi":"10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (<i>P</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) (<i>P</i> < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) (<i>P</i> < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (<i>P</i> < .005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51291,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","volume":"14 4","pages":"212-222"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fa/d3/jap-14-212.PMC9444484.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction.\",\"authors\":\"Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira, Vitória Ramos Medeiros, Maria de Fátima Trindade Pinto Campos, Annie Karoline Bezerra de Medeiros, Burak Yilmaz, Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro\",\"doi\":\"10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (<i>P</i> < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) (<i>P</i> < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) (<i>P</i> < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (<i>P</i> < .005).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics\",\"volume\":\"14 4\",\"pages\":\"212-222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/fa/d3/jap-14-212.PMC9444484.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.212\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2022.14.4.212","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction.
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction.
Materials and methods: 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P < .05).
Results: The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) (P < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) (P < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P < .005).
Conclusion: Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.
期刊介绍:
This journal aims to convey scientific and clinical progress in the field of prosthodontics and its related areas to many dental communities concerned with esthetic and functional restorations, occlusion, implants, prostheses, and biomaterials related to prosthodontics.
This journal publishes
• Original research data of high scientific merit in the field of diagnosis, function, esthetics and stomatognathic physiology related to prosthodontic rehabilitation, physiology and mechanics of occlusion, mechanical and biologic aspects of prosthodontic materials including dental implants.
• Review articles by experts on controversies and new developments in prosthodontics.
• Case reports if they provide or document new fundamental knowledge.