Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial
Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/clr.12600
复制
发表时间：
2016-12-01
影响因子：
4.3
通讯作者：
Bragger, Urs
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joda, Tim;Bragger, Urs
目的：本随机对照试验的目的是比较数字化和传统种植体印模期间以患者为中心的结果。材料和方法：在交叉研究设计中，对20例种植支撑冠单牙置换患者进行口内扫描（IOS）[试验]和经典聚醚印模[对照]。从试验开始或对照过程的顺序分布是随机选择的。采用视觉模拟量表（visual analogue scale， VAS）评估患者对便利相关因素水平的感知和满意度。此外，临床工作时间分别记录，用于测试和控制程序。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验进行统计分析，并用Holm方法进行多重检验校正。结果：VAS评分范围从0到100，患者对IOS的平均便利程度评分为78.6 (SD +/- 14.0)，而传统印象评分为53.6 (SD +/- 15.4) [P = 0.0001]。如果将来可以在两种技术之间选择，所有患者都更喜欢数字工作流程。其次，与传统方法的17.9 min （SD +/- 1.1）相比，IOS方法明显更快，为14.8 min (SD +/- 2.2) [P = 0.0001]。结论：基于本研究的发现，两种印模方案都成功地为所有研究参与者捕获了3D种植体位置。然而，根据以患者为中心的结果，数字技术成为最受欢迎的技术，与传统印象相比，数字技术更省时。
Objectives: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare patient-centered outcomes during digital and conventional implant impressions.Material and methods: In a crossover study design, intraoral scanning (IOS) [test] as well as classical polyether impressions [control] were both performed on 20 patients for single-tooth replacement with implant-supported crowns. The sequential distribution of either starting with the test or the control procedure was randomly selected. Patients' perception and satisfaction on the level of convenience-related factors were assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaires. In addition, clinical work time was separately recorded for test and control procedures. Statistical analyses were performed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and corrected for multiple testing by the method of Holm.Results: On VAS ranging from 0 to 100, patients scored a mean convenience level of 78.6 (SD +/- 14.0) in favor of IOS compared to conventional impressions with 53.6 (SD +/- 15.4) [P = 0.0001]. All included patients would prefer the digital workflow if in the future they could choose between the two techniques. Secondary, IOS was significantly faster with 14.8 min (SD +/- 2.2) compared to the conventional approach with 17.9 min (SD +/- 1.1) [P = 0.0001].Conclusion: Based on the findings of this investigation, both impression protocols worked successfully for all study participants capturing the 3D implant positions. However, the digital technique emerges as the most preferred one according to patient-centered outcomes and was more time-effective compared to conventional impressions.