Tim Joda1, Marco Ferrari2,3, Urs Bragger4, Nicola U Zitzmann1. 1. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials, School of Dental Medicine, University of Siena, Siena, Italy. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 4. Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this RCT was to analyze Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of implant crowns processed in complete digital workflows (test) and combined analog-digital workflows (control) with a three-year follow-up. This is a second reporting from the same trial with sample size calculation based on time efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Twenty participants were selected for single-tooth replacement with screw-retained crowns in posterior sites (Straumann TL Implant System). Ten patients each were treated with test or control workflows and evaluated after 1 week of prosthetic delivery (baseline) and 3 years. The subjective opinion of the patient was assessed using visual analog scales (VAS) for PROMs; the Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS) for the objective evaluation of the dentist. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for comparisons between test and control with a level of significance set at α = 0.05. RESULTS: In test and control, implant crowns showed 100% survival without technical and/or biological complications. Mean PROMs varied between 81.6 and 90.3 with no difference between test and control, or between baseline and after 3 years for intra-patient comparison. Linear regression analysis exhibited a significant correlation between FIPS and PROMs related to overall treatment satisfaction (VAS-1: coefficient 0.45; p = 0.0472). CONCLUSION:Subjective patient's perception (PROMs) of posterior implant crowns processed in complete digital and combined analog-digital workflows revealed comparable high levels of satisfaction on the overall treatment outcome including function, esthetics, and cleanability after 3 years. The objective evaluation of the dentist (FIPS) seems to reflect the perception of the patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this RCT was to analyze Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of implant crowns processed in complete digital workflows (test) and combined analog-digital workflows (control) with a three-year follow-up. This is a second reporting from the same trial with sample size calculation based on time efficiency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty participants were selected for single-tooth replacement with screw-retained crowns in posterior sites (Straumann TL Implant System). Ten patients each were treated with test or control workflows and evaluated after 1 week of prosthetic delivery (baseline) and 3 years. The subjective opinion of the patient was assessed using visual analog scales (VAS) for PROMs; the Functional Implant Prosthodontic Score (FIPS) for the objective evaluation of the dentist. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used for comparisons between test and control with a level of significance set at α = 0.05. RESULTS: In test and control, implant crowns showed 100% survival without technical and/or biological complications. Mean PROMs varied between 81.6 and 90.3 with no difference between test and control, or between baseline and after 3 years for intra-patient comparison. Linear regression analysis exhibited a significant correlation between FIPS and PROMs related to overall treatment satisfaction (VAS-1: coefficient 0.45; p = 0.0472). CONCLUSION: Subjective patient's perception (PROMs) of posterior implant crowns processed in complete digital and combined analog-digital workflows revealed comparable high levels of satisfaction on the overall treatment outcome including function, esthetics, and cleanability after 3 years. The objective evaluation of the dentist (FIPS) seems to reflect the perception of the patients.
Authors: Francesco Guido Mangano; Uli Hauschild; Giovanni Veronesi; Mario Imburgia; Carlo Mangano; Oleg Admakin Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-06-06 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Monika Bjelopavlovic; Michael Weyhrauch; Herbert Scheller; Stefan Wentaschek; Karl Martin Lehmann Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-10-07 Impact factor: 3.748