Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO2 Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows.
Gintaute, Aiste; Weber, Karin; Zitzmann, Nicola U; Brägger, Urs; Ferrari, Marco; Joda, Tim.
Afiliación
  • Gintaute A; Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel, 4058 Basel, Switzerland.
  • Weber K; Private Dental Office, 4314 Zeiningen, Switzerland.
  • Zitzmann NU; Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel, 4058 Basel, Switzerland.
  • Brägger U; Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland.
  • Ferrari M; Department of Prosthodontics and Dental Materials, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy.
  • Joda T; Department of Reconstructive Dentistry, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel, University of Basel, 4058 Basel, Switzerland.
J Clin Med ; 10(12)2021 Jun 16.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34208773
This double-blind randomized controlled trial with a crossover design analyzed the technical and clinical performance of three-unit monolithic ZrO2 implant-fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs), prepared using two complete digital workflows (Test-1, Test-2) and one mixed analog-digital workflow (Control). Each of the 20 study patients received three iFDPs, resulting in 60 restorations for analysis. The quality of the restorations was assessed by analyzing laboratory cross-mounting and calculating the chairside adjustment time required during fitting. All iFDPs could be produced successfully with all three workflows. The highest cross-mounting success rate was observed for the original pairing iFDP/model of the Control group. Overall, 60% of iFDPs prepared with Test-1 workflow did not require chairside adjustment compared with 50% for Test-2 and 30% for Controls. The mean total chairside adjustment time, as the sum of interproximal, pontic, and occlusal corrections was 2.59 ± 2.51 min (Control), 2.88 ± 2.86 min (Test-1), and 3.87 ± 3.02 min (Test-2). All tested workflows were feasible for treatment with iFDPs in posterior sites on a soft tissue level type implant system. For clinical routine, it has to be considered that chairside adjustments may be necessary, at least in every second patient, independent on the workflow used.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Med Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials Idioma: En Revista: J Clin Med Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article