The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Direct Intraoral Scan and Traditional Impression for CAD/CAM Mandibular Overdenture Base: RCT on Peri-implant Marginal Bone Changes

Ahmed R Seifeldeen, Marwa A Aboelez, Ashraf A Gebreel, Mohammed M Fouad

Keywords : Bone height changes, CAD/CAM denture base, Digital impression, Implant impression technique, Implant overdenture

Citation Information : Seifeldeen AR, Aboelez MA, Gebreel AA, Fouad MM. Comparison of Direct Intraoral Scan and Traditional Impression for CAD/CAM Mandibular Overdenture Base: RCT on Peri-implant Marginal Bone Changes. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (6):527-534.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3709

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-09-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of digital vs traditional impression techniques on peri-implant vertical bone resorption in the creation of mandibular overdenture bases supported by four implants using CAD/CAM technology. Materials and methods: Twenty edentulous patients were placed in four mandibular implants and randomly divided into groups: (A) the control group (CIG) (n = 10); patients obtained CAD/CAM denture base using conventional impression technique and group (B) the study (DIG) group (n = 10); patients obtained CAD/CAM denture base using digital impression technique. Peri-implant vertical bone height was measured immediately (T0), 6 (T6), and 12 (T12) months after insertion. Peri-implant vertical bone loss (VBL) was calculated first 6 months (T1), the second 6 months (T2), and 1 year (T3) after insertion. Results: For both groups, the survival rates of inserted implants were 100%. The amount of VBL in the first year in both groups was within normal ranges. In both groups, VBL significantly decreased over time. The control group recorded significantly higher VBL than (DIG) group at T2 (p = 0.006) and at T3 (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Digital intraoral scanning technique may be considered a more beneficial registration method than traditional impression technique for the construction of CAD/CAM 4-implant-assisted overdenture base regarding the preservation of vertical bone levels. Clinical significance: Both digital intraoral scanners and conventional impression techniques can be used for the construction of CAD/CAM-implant-assisted overdenture bases regarding the preservation of peri-implant vertical bone resorption.

PDF Share
  1. Dye BA, Thornton-Evans G. Trends in oral health by poverty status as measured by Healthy People 2010 objectives. Public Health Rep 2010;125(6):817–830. DOI: 10.1177/003335491012500609.
  2. ELsyad MA, Tella EAES, Mohamed SS, et al. Within-patient evaluation of chewing efficiency and maximum bite force of conventional dentures, fixed prostheses, and milled bar overdentures used for All-on-4 implant rehabilitation of atrophied mandibular ridges: A short-term randomized trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2022;24(4):522–531. DOI: 10.1111/cid.13104.
  3. Yücesoy T, Göktaş TA. Evaluation of sinus pneumatization and dental implant placement in atrophic maxillary premolar and molar regions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37(2):407–415. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.9215.
  4. Montero J. A review of the major prosthetic factors influencing the prognosis of implant prosthodontics. J Clin Med 2021;10(4):816. DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040816.
  5. Yasar MN, Cetinsahin C, Bayar O, et al. Implant Impression techniques using different materials and methods: A review. J Clin Diagn Res 2022;16(2):ZE12–ZE17. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/53057.16014.
  6. Vieira SN, Lourenço MF, Pereira RC, et al. Conventional and digital impressions for fabrication of complete implant-supported bars: A comparative in vitro study. Materials 2023;16(11):4176. DOI: 10.3390/ma16114176.
  7. Arieli A, Adawi M, Masri M, et al. The accuracy of open-tray vs. snap on impression techniques in a 6-implant model: An in vitro 3D study. Materials 2022;15(6):2103. DOI: 10.3390/ma15062103.
  8. Abu Ghofa A, Önöral Ö. An assessment of the passivity of the fit of multiunit screw-retained implant frameworks manufactured by using additive and subtractive technologies. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129(3):440–446. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.06.022.
  9. Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, et al. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128(5):1017–1023. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016.
  10. Mühlemann S, Hjerppe J, Hämmerle CH, et al. Production time, effectiveness and costs of additive and subtractive computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) of implant prostheses: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021;32:289–302. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13801.
  11. Angelara K, Bratos M, Sorensen JA. Comparison of strength of milled and conventionally processed PMMA complete-arch implant-supported immediate interim fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129(1):221–227. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.04.025.
  12. Lee S, Hong S-J, Paek J, et al. Comparing accuracy of denture bases fabricated by injection molding, CAD/CAM milling, and rapid prototyping method. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11(1):55–64. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.1.55.
  13. Krennmair S, Weinländer M, Forstner T, et al. Factors affecting peri-implant bone resorption in four implant supported mandibular full-arch restorations: A 3-year prospective study. J Clin Periodontol 2016;43(1):92–101. DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12469.
  14. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, et al. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10(Suppl 1):121–138. PMID: 28944373.
  15. Awaad NM, Eladl NM, Abbass NA. Assessments of bone height loss in telescopic mandibular implant-retained overdentures retained by two and four end - osseous implants: A randomized clinical trial. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2019;7(4):623–637. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.108.
  16. Jorge E, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, et al. Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: A comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88(3):329–336. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.128070.
  17. Abdel-Khalek EA. Fabrication of a simple acrylic template to standardize periapical radiographs for implants retaining mandibular bar overdentures. J Prosthodont 2019;28(2):e657–e660. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12676.
  18. Heckmann SM, Schrott A, Graef F, et al. Mandibular two-implant telescopic overdentures: 10-year clinical and radiographical results. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15(5):560–569. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01064.x.
  19. Palinkas M, Nassar MSP, Cecílio FA, et al. Age and gender influence on maximal bite force and masticatory muscles thickness. Arch Oral Biol 2010;55(10):797–802. DOI: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2010.06.016.
  20. Rashidan N, Alikhasi M, Samadizadeh S, et al. Accuracy of implant impressions with different impression coping types and shapes. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(2):218–225. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00241.x.
  21. Gedrimiene A, Adaskevicius R, Rutkunas V. Accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions for fixed partial dentures: A comparative clinical study. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11(5):271–279. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.271.
  22. Baba NZ, Goodacre BJ, Goodacre CJ, et al. CAD/CAM complete denture systems and physical properties: A review of the literature. J Prosthodont 2021;30(S2):113–124. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13243.
  23. Yen J-Y, Hsu H-J, Lai Y-L, et al. Efficacy of customized crown-level position jig in measuring peri-implant crestal bone level on periapical radiographs: An in vitro study. J Dent Sci 2024;19(1):338–344. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2023.06.021.
  24. Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, et al. The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: A review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1986;1(1):11–25. PMID: 3527955.
  25. Elsyad MA, Shoukouki AHE. Resilient liner vs. clip attachment effect on peri-implant tissues of bar-implant-retained mandibular overdenture: A 1-year clinical and radiographical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2010;21(5):473–480. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01879.x.
  26. Laurell L, Lundgren D. Marginal bone level changes at dental implants after 5 years in function: A meta-analysis. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2011;13(1):19–28. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00182.x.
  27. Petrie CS, Walker MP, Lu Y, et al. A preliminary three-dimensional finite element analysis of mandibular implant overdentures. Int J Prosthodont 2014;27(1):70–72. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.3425.
  28. Roberts WE, Huja SS. Bone physiology, metabolism, and biomechanics in orthodontic practice. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques 6th ed St Louis: Mosby. 2016:99–153. ISBN-13: 978-0323287456.
  29. Elsyad MA, Alokda MM, Gebreel AA, et al. Effect of two designs of implant-supported overdentures on peri-implant and posterior mandibular bone resorptions: A 5-year prospective radiographic study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(10):e184–e192. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12984.
  30. Yoda N, Matsudate Y, Abue M, et al. Effect of attachment type on load distribution to implant abutments and the residual ridge in mandibular implant-supported overdentures. J Dent Biomech 2015;6(0):1758736015576009. DOI: 10.1177/17587360155 76009.
  31. Turker N, Buyukkaplan US. Effects of overdenture attachment systems with different working principles on stress transmission: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Adv Prosthodont 2020;12(6):351–360. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.6.351.
  32. Moura RV, Kojima AN, Saraceni CHC, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for implant restorations. J Prosthodont 2019;28(2):e530–e535. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12799.
  33. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, et al. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26(6):715–719. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12375.
  34. Uluc IG, Guncu MB, Aktas G, et al. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 5-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated with CAD/CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans. J Dent Sci 2022;17(1):63–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.07.012.
  35. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: A comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28(11):1360–1367. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12994.
  36. Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, et al. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: Traditional techniques vs a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig 2018;22(3):1253–1262. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2189-z.
  37. Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression vs intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122(6):543–549. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018. 10.018.
  38. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, et al. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: A systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29(4):836–845. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3625.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.