Literature DB >> 27004280

Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for "All-on-Four" Restorations.

Enrico Gherlone, Paolo Capparé, Raffale Vinci, Francesco Ferrini, Giorgio Gastaldi, Roberto Crespi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the most accurate impression technique for "All on Four" restoration, comparing conventional (CIG) and digital impressions (DIG).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients randomly selected for this study were required to be edentulous in at least one arch, presenting with severe posterior mandibular or maxillary atrophy. All patients underwent full-arch immediate-load rehabilitations, which were fixed to a total of four implants (two axial and two tilted). Following implant placement, patients were stratified into two groups. Conventional pick-up was carried out in the control group, and digital impressions were performed in the test group. Following prosthetic rehabilitation, patients underwent intraoral digital radiographs to check for the presence of voids at the bar-implant connection and to evaluate accuracy. Three-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up examinations were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 25 patients received immediately loaded "All-on-Four" prostheses (17 maxillary, 13 mandibular) supported by four implants (total 120 implants), of which five received both maxillary and mandibular prosthetic rehabilitation (three patients in CIG, two patients in DIG). No implant dropouts occurred, showing a survival rate of 100%. The digital impression procedure required significantly less time than the conventional procedure (P < .001).
CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate that it is possible to develop computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD/CAM) cobalt-chromium full-arch rehabilitations with satisfactory accuracy using digital impression techniques.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27004280     DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3900

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants        ISSN: 0882-2786            Impact factor:   2.804


  24 in total

Review 1.  Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Ignacio García-Gil; Jorge Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann; Jaime Jiménez-García; Jesus Peláez-Rico; María-Jesús Suárez-García
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2020-08-01

Review 2.  Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Francesco Mangano; Andrea Gandolfi; Giuseppe Luongo; Silvia Logozzo
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.757

3.  Prefabricated Bar System for Immediate Loading in Edentulous Patients: A 5-Year Follow-Up Prospective Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  Enrico F Gherlone; Gianpaolo Sannino; Andrea Rapanelli; Roberto Crespi; Giorgio Gastaldi; Paolo Capparé
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review.

Authors:  David Soto-Penaloza; Regino Zaragozí-Alonso; María Penarrocha-Diago; Miguel Penarrocha-Diago
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2017-03-01

5.  Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type.

Authors:  Marzieh Alikhasi; Hakime Siadat; Alireza Nasirpour; Mahya Hasanzade
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2018-06-04

6.  Digital versus conventional techniques for pattern fabrication of implant-supported frameworks.

Authors:  Marzieh Alikhasi; Ahmad Rohanian; Safoura Ghodsi; Amin Mohammadpour Kolde
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2018 Jan-Mar

7.  Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Posterior Maxillary Rehabilitations Supported by One Straight and One Tilted Implant: A 3-Year Prospective Comparative Study.

Authors:  Francesco Ferrini; Paolo Capparé; Raffaele Vinci; Enrico F Gherlone; Gianpaolo Sannino
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2018-11-11       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Paolo Cappare; Gianpaolo Sannino; Margherita Minoli; Pietro Montemezzi; Francesco Ferrini
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-03-07       Impact factor: 3.390

9.  Combining Intraoral and Face Scans for the Design and Fabrication of Computer-Assisted Design/Computer-Assisted Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) Polyether-Ether-Ketone (PEEK) Implant-Supported Bars for Maxillary Overdentures.

Authors:  Francesco Mangano; Carlo Mangano; Bidzina Margiani; Oleg Admakin
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2019-08-22       Impact factor: 1.932

10.  Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study.

Authors:  Francesco G Mangano; Giovanni Veronesi; Uli Hauschild; Eitan Mijiritsky; Carlo Mangano
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-09-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.