TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of Treatment Time for Single-Implant Crowns Between Digital and Conventional Workflows for Posterior Implant Restorations
T2 - A Randomized Controlled Trial
AU - Jarangkul, Worapat
AU - Kunavisarut, Chatchai
AU - Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri, Suchaya
AU - Joda, Tim
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© (2023) Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Purpose: To compare the treatment time of digital and conventional workflows for single-implant crowns, as well as prostheses made of polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN; Vita Enamic, Vita Zahnfabrik) and lithium disilicate (LS,; nlce, Straumann). Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients who needed a single-implant crown in posterior regions were considered and randomly divided into digital workflows (n = 20) that used an intraoral scanner (I0S; iTero Element 5D, Align Technologies) and conventional workflows (n = 20) that used polyether impressions (3M ESPE Impregum Penta). Then, each group was again distributed into two subgroups based on the crown material used: PICN (n=10) and LS, (n = 10). Treatment time was calculated for both digital and conventional workflows. Analysis was done at a 5% confidence interval (P < .05). An independent two-sample t test was used to compare treatment time between the groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare clinical try-in time among subgroups. Any of the implant crowns that had to be remade in each subgroup were evaluated using the Fisher exact test. Results: The entire process of digital and conventional workflows required 104.31 + 20.83 and 153.48 + 16.35 minutes, respectively. Digital workflows saved 39.2% more time than the conventional protocol for the single-implant crown treatment (P < .0001). Conclusions: Both digital and conventional workflow protocols can achieve a successful outcome for single-implant monolithic crowns in posterior areas. The digital protocol yielded greater timesaving over the conventional procedure in data acquisition and laboratory steps, while the time for clinical try-in and delivery were similar. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants 2024;39:286-293. doi: 10.11607/jomi.10127
AB - Purpose: To compare the treatment time of digital and conventional workflows for single-implant crowns, as well as prostheses made of polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN; Vita Enamic, Vita Zahnfabrik) and lithium disilicate (LS,; nlce, Straumann). Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients who needed a single-implant crown in posterior regions were considered and randomly divided into digital workflows (n = 20) that used an intraoral scanner (I0S; iTero Element 5D, Align Technologies) and conventional workflows (n = 20) that used polyether impressions (3M ESPE Impregum Penta). Then, each group was again distributed into two subgroups based on the crown material used: PICN (n=10) and LS, (n = 10). Treatment time was calculated for both digital and conventional workflows. Analysis was done at a 5% confidence interval (P < .05). An independent two-sample t test was used to compare treatment time between the groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare clinical try-in time among subgroups. Any of the implant crowns that had to be remade in each subgroup were evaluated using the Fisher exact test. Results: The entire process of digital and conventional workflows required 104.31 + 20.83 and 153.48 + 16.35 minutes, respectively. Digital workflows saved 39.2% more time than the conventional protocol for the single-implant crown treatment (P < .0001). Conclusions: Both digital and conventional workflow protocols can achieve a successful outcome for single-implant monolithic crowns in posterior areas. The digital protocol yielded greater timesaving over the conventional procedure in data acquisition and laboratory steps, while the time for clinical try-in and delivery were similar. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants 2024;39:286-293. doi: 10.11607/jomi.10127
KW - clinical research
KW - crowns
KW - dental implants
KW - digital workflow
KW - time efficiency
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85191615951&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.11607/JOMI.10127
DO - 10.11607/JOMI.10127
M3 - Article
C2 - 37910827
AN - SCOPUS:85191615951
SN - 0882-2786
VL - 39
SP - 286
EP - 293
JO - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants
JF - International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants
IS - 2
ER -