RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The advent of three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has revolutionized the field of dentistry, enabling the precise fabrication of dental implants. By utilizing 3D printing, dentists can devise implant plans prior to surgery and accurately translate them into clinical procedures, thereby eliminating the need for multiple surgical procedures, reducing surgical discomfort, and enhancing surgical efficiency. Furthermore, the utilization of digital 3D-printed implant guides facilitates immediate restoration by precisely translating preoperative implant design plans, enabling the preparation of temporary restorations preoperatively. METHODS: This comprehensive study aimed to assess the postoperative oral health status of patients receiving personalized 3D-printed implants and investigate the advantages and disadvantages between the 3D-printed implant and conventional protocol. Additionally, variance analysis was employed to delve into the correlation between periodontal status and overall oral health. Comparisons of continuous paired parameters were made by t-test. RESULTS: The results of our study indicate a commendable one-year survival rate of over 94% for 3D-printed implants. This finding was corroborated by periodontal examinations and follow-up surveys using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire, revealing excellent postoperative oral health status among patients. Notably, OHIP-14 scores were significantly higher in patients with suboptimal periodontal health, suggesting a strong link between periodontal health and overall oral well-being. Moreover, we found that the operating time (14.41 ± 4.64 min) was less statistically significant than for the control group (31.76 ± 6.83 min). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, personalized 3D-printed implant surgery has emerged as a reliable clinical option, offering a viable alternative to traditional implant methods. However, it is imperative to gather further evidence-based medical support through extended follow-up studies to validate its long-term efficacy and safety.
RESUMO
Background/purpose: The impact of prosthetic contour on peri-implant health has attracted increasing attention. This study aimed to evaluate the emergence angles in different implant sites and analyze the correlation between emergence angle and marginal bone loss (MBL). Materials and methods: Single-crown implants with at least 5 years of follow-up were investigated in this retrospective study. Emergence angles and MBL were measured via digital radiography. The differences in emergence angles in different implant sites were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance. Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze the differences in MBL between groups (emergence angle> 30° and ≤30°), and Spearman's rank analysis was used to analyze the correlation between emergence angle and MBL. Results: A total of 502 single-crown implants were included. For the mean mesial and distal emergence angles of different implant sites, the anterior position were 21.67 ± 10.80 (°) and 22.48 ± 12.78 (°), and the premolar were 26.29 ± 12.78 (°) and 24.30 ± 10.07 (°), and the molar were 34.53 ± 13.27 (°) and 34.48 ± 13.58 (°) respectively. The emergence angles of molar implant sites were significantly greater than those of anterior and premolar (P < 0.001). The Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman's rank analysis revealed that there was no correlation between emergence angle and MBL. Conclusion: There were significant differences in the emergence angles at different implant sites. However, when considering factors such as different sites or types of implants, there was no correlation between emergence angle and MBL, and more comprehensive research should be conducted in the future.