ABSTRACT
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, xÌ=02:58; CI, xÌ=31:48) (P < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: xÌ=05:36; 4: xÌ=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.
ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Parallel dental implants improve prosthesis longevity and facilitate the impression making steps when compared with angled implants. The effect of implant angulation on the accuracy of casts generated by using intraoral scanners has not been fully investigated. PURPOSE: The present systematic review addressed following the patient, intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) question: Does implant position affect the intraoral scanning accuracy of arches that will receive complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses? MATERIAL AND METHODS: A bibliographic search was performed in the Medline-PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases by using specific descriptors for studies published until July 2020. All studies evaluated the intraoral scanning accuracy of arches rehabilitated with multiple implants through implant linear and/or angular deviation. RESULTS: Eight in vitro studies that met the eligibility criteria were evaluated. Five publications showed lower linear and angular displacements for the digital scans compared with the conventional technique. Two studies showed that the digital scan presented higher angular and linear distortions than the conventional technique. Only 1 study did not find differences between the 2 recording methods. CONCLUSIONS: Digital scanning is reliable. However, caution is needed concerning its indication, especially in patients where the angles between implants are greater than 15 degrees. The association of the implant angulation with the clinical factors needs to be further investigated. The absence of clinical evidence and methodological heterogeneity limited the results of this study.
