Comparison of Treatment Time for Single-Implant Crowns Between Digital and Conventional Workflows for Posterior Implant Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Issued Date
2024-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
08822786
eISSN
19424434
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85191615951
Pubmed ID
37910827
Journal Title
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants
Volume
39
Issue
2
Start Page
286
End Page
293
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants Vol.39 No.2 (2024) , 286-293
Suggested Citation
Jarangkul W., Kunavisarut C., Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S., Joda T. Comparison of Treatment Time for Single-Implant Crowns Between Digital and Conventional Workflows for Posterior Implant Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants Vol.39 No.2 (2024) , 286-293. 293. doi:10.11607/JOMI.10127 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/98560
Title
Comparison of Treatment Time for Single-Implant Crowns Between Digital and Conventional Workflows for Posterior Implant Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the treatment time of digital and conventional workflows for single-implant crowns, as well as prostheses made of polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN; Vita Enamic, Vita Zahnfabrik) and lithium disilicate (LS,; nlce, Straumann). Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients who needed a single-implant crown in posterior regions were considered and randomly divided into digital workflows (n = 20) that used an intraoral scanner (I0S; iTero Element 5D, Align Technologies) and conventional workflows (n = 20) that used polyether impressions (3M ESPE Impregum Penta). Then, each group was again distributed into two subgroups based on the crown material used: PICN (n=10) and LS, (n = 10). Treatment time was calculated for both digital and conventional workflows. Analysis was done at a 5% confidence interval (P < .05). An independent two-sample t test was used to compare treatment time between the groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare clinical try-in time among subgroups. Any of the implant crowns that had to be remade in each subgroup were evaluated using the Fisher exact test. Results: The entire process of digital and conventional workflows required 104.31 + 20.83 and 153.48 + 16.35 minutes, respectively. Digital workflows saved 39.2% more time than the conventional protocol for the single-implant crown treatment (P < .0001). Conclusions: Both digital and conventional workflow protocols can achieve a successful outcome for single-implant monolithic crowns in posterior areas. The digital protocol yielded greater timesaving over the conventional procedure in data acquisition and laboratory steps, while the time for clinical try-in and delivery were similar. IntJ Oral Maxillofac Implants 2024;39:286-293. doi: 10.11607/jomi.10127