Patient-reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO2 implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double-blind crossover randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: This double-blind randomized controlled trial analyzed patient-reported outcome measures in terms of subjective patient satisfaction compared to objective dental evaluation of prosthetic treatment with 3-unit monolithic zirconium dioxide implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) in 3 digital workflows. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients were restored with 3 iFDPs each on Straumann TL-implants with 2 completely digital workflows using different intraoral optical scanning systems with model-free fabrication of the restoration (Trios 3/3Shape [Test-1]; Virtuo Vivo/Straumann [Test-2]), and mixed analog-digital workflow with conventional impressions and digitized gypsum casts (Impregum/3M Espe [Control]). The order of impression-taking and the prosthetic try-in were randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs were compared for patient satisfaction and dental evaluation using ANOVA. RESULTS: For iFDP evaluation, patients generally provided more favorable ratings than dental experts, regardless of the workflow. ANOVA revealed no significant difference for overall satisfaction when comparing Test-1, Test-2, or Control, either for patients (f-ratio: 0.13; p = 0.876) or dentist (f-ratio: 1.55: p = 0.221). Secondary, patients clearly favored the digital impression workflows over the conventional approach (f-ratio: 14.57; p < 0.001). Overall, the 3Shape workflow (Test-1) received the highest scores for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The different digital workflows demonstrated minor influence on the subjective and objective evaluation of the monolithic zirconium dioxide iFDPs in nonesthetic regions; however, the dentist may significantly increase patient satisfaction by choosing intraoral scanning instead of conventional impressions. The dentist has to consider individual patients' needs to fulfill their expectations for a personalized solution.

A Double-Blind Crossover RCT Analyzing Technical and Clinical Performance of Monolithic ZrO2 Implant Fixed Dental Prostheses (iFDP) in Three Different Digital Workflows.

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.

Time-efficiency and cost-analysis comparing three digital workflows for treatment with monolithic zirconia implant fixed dental prostheses: A double-blinded RCT.

OBJECTIVES: This double-blinded randomized controlled trial investigated economic performance indicators (EPI) in terms of time-efficiency and production costs of 3-unit monolithic zirconium-dioxide (ZrO2) implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDP) in three different workflows. METHODS: Twenty patients with two Straumann Tissue-Level-Implants received three iFDPs; two were fabricated in proprietary complete digital workflows with intraoral optical scanning and model-free fabrication with company-related CAD/CAM lab-software while one iFDP was manufactured on digitized casts from conventional impressions. The sequence of impression-taking for the three workflows (TRIOS 3/3Shape [Test-1]; Virtuo Vivo/Dental Wings [Test-2]; Impregum/3M Espe [Control]) was randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs bonded to ti-base abutments were analyzed. Clinical and technical worksteps for Test-1/Test-2/Control were recorded and evaluated for time-efficiency including cost-analysis (CHF=Swiss Francs) using ANOVA-Tests (significance level α=0.05). RESULTS: Mean total work time, as the sum of clinical plus technical steps, was 97.5 min (SD ± 23.6) for Test-1, 193.1 min (SD ± 25.2) for Test-2, and 172.6 min (SD ± 27.4) for Control. Times were significantly different between Test-1/Test-2 (p < 0.00001), Test-1/Control (p < 0.00001), and Test-2/Control (p < 0.03610). Technical costs were 566 CHF (SD ± 49.3) for Test-1, 711 CHF (SD ± 78.8) for Test-2, 812 CHF (SD ± 89.6) for Control, and were also significantly different for all comparisons (p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Test-1 demonstrated the best performance for time-efficiency, Test-2 revealed the worst result. This indicates that digital workflows are not the same and not necessarily superior to analog workflows of monolithic ZrO2 iFDPs. Complexity decreases by reducing the number of steps following complete digital workflows, resulting in lower production costs compared to the mixed analog-digital workflow with conventional impressions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Complete digital workflows comprising intraoral optical scanning without physical models for treatment with monolithic ZrO2 iFDPs is an efficient alternative to mixed analog-digital workflows with conventional impressions and labside digitization of dental casts.

Relationship of salivary and plasma cortisol levels in preterm infants: results of a prospective observational study and systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: (1) To investigate the relationship of salivary and plasma cortisol levels in preterm infants with a focus on the usability of salivary cortisol in diagnostic work-up of infants at risk of adrenal insufficiency. (2) To perform a systematic review addressing this question. METHODS: Clinical study: We conducted a prospective observational single-center study in preterm infants. We analyzed plasma and saliva cortisol concentrations by enzyme immunoassay. Correlation analysis was used to determine the relation between salivary and plasma cortisol levels and the agreement of the measurement methods was analyzed according to Bland-Altman. Systematic review: A systematic literature search (PubMed and Embase) on the relationship of salivary and plasma cortisol levels in neonates was performed in November 2012. RESULTS: Clinical study: We enrolled 58 preterm infants (median (interquartile range) gestational age at birth was 31.4 (28.1-32.7) weeks, birth weight 1,340 (974-1,745) g, respectively). Correlation analyses revealed a relationship of plasma cortisol and salivary cortisol levels. Rank correlation coefficient was 0.6. Estimating plasma cortisol levels based on measured salivary cortisol levels showed poor agreement of the two methods for determining plasma cortisol levels (direct and via salivary cortisol). Sensitivity and specificity of salivary cortisol for the detection of adrenal insufficiency were 0.66 and 0.62, respectively. Systematic review: Six studies in preterm infants and term neonates depicting the correlation of salivary and plasma cortisol were identified with a range of saliva-plasma correlation coefficients from 0.44 to 0.83. CONCLUSIONS: Substitution of plasma cortisol by salivary cortisol determination cannot be recommended in preterm infants because of unsatisfactory agreement between methods.