This study compares conventional impression and cast fabrication to direct/indirect digital scannig and 3D printed casts regarding their accuracy in replicating the peri-implant emergence profile of single implants in the maxillary anterior region (FDI #15-25).
Correct design of the peri-implant emergence profile (EP) is crucial for maintaining the health of the supracrestal complex and long-term success of the implant implant-prosthodontics. After its formation with a provisional restoration, its shape needs to be transferred to the final restoration via conventional elastomeric or digital (direct/indirect) impression taking. Our aims are to investigate around maxillary anterior single implants in patients with thick gingival phenotype: 1. the accuracy of direct digital impression vs indirect digital impression vs conventional elastomeric impression in capturing the EP and implant position 2. the accuracy of 3D printed cast with conventional gingival mask vs conventional epoxy-resin cast with gingival mask in replicating the EP and implant position 3. the amount of soft tissue collapse at 0,2,10,20 minutes following the removal of the provisional restoration in case of direct EP scanning
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
15
the provisional restoration will be scanned with intraoral scanner extraorally, based on which a virtual model will be created, from which a 3D printed cast will be created with manually fabricated gingival mask based on the provisional restoration
the emergence profile will be directly scanned with intraoral scanner at 0, 2, 10, and 20 minutes after removing the provisional restoration
conventional impression with elastomer (silicon), from which a high-precision epoxi-resin cast with gingival mask will be created
Semmelweis University, Department of Prosthodontics
Budapest, Pest County, Hungary
RECRUITING3D RMS - root mean square difference
The absolute mean deviation between the emergence profiles replicated with different impression techniques along the whole surface of the EP
Time frame: at impression taking, 0,2,10,20 mins
Linear vertical soft tissue change
Vertical height change of the buccal gingiva marginal level measured at the mesial and distal papilae and mid-facial levels
Time frame: at impression taking, 0,2,10,20 mins
Linear horizontal soft tissue change
Horizontal thickness change of the buccal and palatal gingiva at three levels at each third of the distance between the implant platform and the marginal gingiva.
Time frame: at impression taking, 0,2,10,20 mins
2D RMS - root mean square difference
The absolute mean deviation between the emergence profiles replicated with different impression techniques along vertical and horizontal cross-sections.
Time frame: at impression taking, 0,2,10,20 mins
Patient reported outome measures - evaluation of the impression method
Patient evaluation of the different types of impression methods on a visual analoge scale based questionnaire
Time frame: at the end of each session of the digital and conventional impression taking
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.