The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Efficiency of occlusal and interproximal adjustments in CAD-CAM manufactured single implant crowns - cast-free vs 3D printed cast-based

  • Graf, Tobias (Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University) ;
  • Guth, Jan-Frederik (Department of Prosthodontics, Center for Dentistry and Oral Medicine, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University) ;
  • Diegritz, Christian (Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontics, University Hospital) ;
  • Liebermann, Anja (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital) ;
  • Schweiger, Josef (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital) ;
  • Schubert, Oliver (Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University Hospital)
  • Received : 2021.09.06
  • Accepted : 2021.11.23
  • Published : 2021.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of occlusal and interproximal adjustments of single implant crowns (SIC), comparing a digital cast-free approach (CF) and a protocol using 3D printed casts (PC). MATERIALS AND METHODS. A titanium implant was inserted at position of lower right first molar in a typodont. The implant position was scanned using an intraoral scanner and SICs were fabricated accordingly. Ten crowns (CF; n = 10) were subject to a digital cast-free workflow without any labside occlusal and interproximal modifications. Ten other identical crowns (PC) were adjusted to 3D printed casts before delivery. All crowns were then adapted to the testing model, simulating chair-side adjustments during clinical placement. Adjustment time, quantity of adjustments, and contact relationship were assessed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software (P < .05). RESULTS. Median and interquartile range (IQR) of clinical adjustment time was 02:44 (IQR 00:45) minutes in group CF and 01:46 (IQR 00:21) minutes in group PC. Laboratory and clinical adjustment time in group PC was 04:25 (IQR 00:59) minutes in total. Mean and standard deviation (±SD) of root mean squared error (RMSE) of quantity of clinical adjustments was 45 ± 7 ㎛ in group CF and 34 ± 6 ㎛ in group PC. RMSE of total adjustments was 61 ± 11 ㎛ in group PC. Quality of occlusal contacts was better in group CF. CONCLUSION. Time effort for clinical adjustments was higher in the cast-free protocol, whereas quantity of modifications was lower, and the occlusal contact relationship was found more favourable.

Keywords

References

  1. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
  2. Muhlemann S, Kraus RD, Hammerle CHF, Thoma DS. Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:184-95.
  3. Schubert O, Schweiger J, Stimmelmayr M, Nold E, Guth JF. Digital implant planning and guided implant surgery - workflow and reliability. Br Dent J 2019;226:101-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2019.44
  4. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:11-9.
  5. Hasanzade M, Shirani M, Afrashtehfar KI, Naseri P, Alikhasi M. In vivo and in vitro comparison of internal and marginal fit of digital and conventional impressions for full-coverage fixed restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract 2019;19:236-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2019.04.003
  6. Joda T, Bragger U. Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: a prospective clinical crossover trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:1047-53. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3963
  7. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:35-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12527
  8. Sawase T, Kuroshima S. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. Dent Mater J 2020;39:57-61. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-285
  9. Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2020;29:309-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13131
  10. Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G, Ozcan M. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01398-2
  11. Shimizu S, Shinya A, Kuroda S, Gomi H. The accuracy of the CAD system using intraoral and extraoral scanners for designing of fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater J 2017;36:402-7. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2016-326
  12. Revilla-Leon M, Ozcan M. Additive manufacturing technologies used for processing polymers: current status and potential application in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont 2019;28:146-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12801
  13. Schweiger J, Edelhoff D, Guth JF. 3D printing in digital prosthetic dentistry: an overview of recent developments in additive manufacturing. J Clin Med 2021;10:2010. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10092010
  14. Emir F, Ayyildiz S. Accuracy evaluation of complete-arch models manufactured by three different 3D printing technologies: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont Res 2021;65:365-70. https://doi.org/10.2186/jpr.JPOR_2019_579
  15. Park ME, Shin SY. Three-dimensional comparative study on the accuracy and reproducibility of dental casts fabricated by 3D printers. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:861.e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.08.020
  16. Buda M, Bratos M, Sorensen JA. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:913-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.011
  17. Revilla-Leon M, Gonzalez-Martin O, Perez Lopez J, Sanchez-Rubio JL, Ozcan M. Position accuracy of implant analogs on 3d printed polymer versus conventional dental stone casts measured using a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthodont 2018;27:560-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12708
  18. Maria R, Tan MY, Wong KM, Lee BCH, Chia VAP, Tan KBC. Accuracy of implant analogs in 3d printed resin models. J Prosthodont 2021;30:57-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13217
  19. Revilla-Leon M, Fogarty R, Barrington JJ, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M. Influence of scan body design and digital implant analogs on implant replica position in additively manufactured casts. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:202-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.07.011
  20. Zhang Y, Tian J, Wei D, Di P, Lin Y. Quantitative clinical adjustment analysis of posterior single implant crown in a chairside digital workflow: A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:1059-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13519
  21. Joda T, Bragger U. Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1304-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12270
  22. Joda T, Katsoulis J, Bragger U. Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:946-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12377
  23. Joda T, Bragger U. Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:1401-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12753
  24. Pan S, Guo D, Zhou Y, Jung RE, Hammerle CHF, Muhlemann S. Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model-free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: A double-blind self-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:617-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13447
  25. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: a comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:577-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5938
  26. Joda T, Bragger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:1430-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12476
  27. Hamm J, Berndt EU, Beuer F, Zachriat C. Evaluation of model materials for CAD/CAM in vitro studies. Int J Comput Dent 2020;23:49-56.
  28. Dupagne L, Tapie L, Lebon N, Mawussi B. Comparison of the acquisition accuracy and digitizing noise of 9 intraoral and extraoral scanners: An objective method. J Prosthet Dent 2021:S0022-3913(21)00076-7.
  29. Ellakany P, Tantawi ME, Mahrous AA, Al-Harbi F. Evaluation of the accuracy of digital impressions obtained from intraoral and extraoral dental scanners with different CAD/CAM scanning technologies: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2021 Jun 4. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13400.
  30. Semper-Hogg W, Kraft S, Stiller S, Mehrhof J, Nelson K. Analytical and experimental position stability of the abutment in different dental implant systems with a conical implant-abutment connection. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1017-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0786-1
  31. Hogg WS, Zulauf K, Mehrhof J, Nelson K. The influence of torque tightening on the position stability of the abutment in conical implant-abutment connections. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28:538-41. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.3853
  32. Oh KC, Lee B, Park YB, Moon HS. Accuracy of three digitization methods for the dental arch with various tooth preparation designs: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2019;28:195-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12998
  33. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:26-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x
  34. Warreth A, Doody K, Al-Mohsen M, Morcos O, AlMohsen M, Ibieyou N. Fundamentals of occlusion and restorative dentistry. Part II: occlusal contacts, interferences and occlusal considerations in implant patients. J Ir Dent Assoc 2015;61:252-9.