全数字化与传统工作流程:可摘全口覆盖义齿的效果是否一样好?随机交叉试验。

Thomas Van de Winkel, Frans Delfos, Olleke van der Heijden, Ewald Bronkhorst, Luc Verhamme, Gert Meijer
{"title":"全数字化与传统工作流程:可摘全口覆盖义齿的效果是否一样好?随机交叉试验。","authors":"Thomas Van de Winkel, Frans Delfos, Olleke van der Heijden, Ewald Bronkhorst, Luc Verhamme, Gert Meijer","doi":"10.1111/cid.13398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Implant-supported removable complete overdentures (IODs) are a common treatment in case of edentulism and malfunctioning of the conventional denture. Manufacturing IODs in a conventional way (C-IODs) is time-consuming, but in a digital workflow, this can be done in three sessions. Digitally produced IODs (3D-IODs) are also more advantageous than C-IODs because lost or broken 3D-IODs can be swiftly reproduced as the digital design is always available.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To prove in a non-inferiority study, with a margin of 0.3 point per Oral Health Impact Profile-20 (OHIP-20) question, that IODs made according to a fully digital workflow (3D-IODs), function as good as C-IODs with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This randomized crossover study included 36 fully edentulous patients who showed extreme resorption of the maxillary alveolar process, making denture retention difficult. After a maxillary bone augmentation and the installation of 4-6 implants, each patient wore both types of IOD for 1 year each, with the order reversed in two subsets of patients. The 3D-IODs and C-IODs were fabricated in advance for both jaws (at least two mandibular implants were already present). The OHIP-20 survey was performed at baseline, after 1 year (before the IOD switch), and after 2 years to determine patient satisfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS). The general health status was assessed using the Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the PROMs, patients preferred the 3D-IOD: the improvement on the overall OHIP scale (0-4), expressed as a mean, was 0.26 points greater than for the C-IOD (p < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1-100) with an increase of 7.37 points (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item \"emotional well-being,\" the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (p = 0.033).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.</p>","PeriodicalId":93944,"journal":{"name":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fully digital versus conventional workflow: Are removable complete overdentures equally good? A randomized crossover trial.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Van de Winkel, Frans Delfos, Olleke van der Heijden, Ewald Bronkhorst, Luc Verhamme, Gert Meijer\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cid.13398\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Implant-supported removable complete overdentures (IODs) are a common treatment in case of edentulism and malfunctioning of the conventional denture. Manufacturing IODs in a conventional way (C-IODs) is time-consuming, but in a digital workflow, this can be done in three sessions. Digitally produced IODs (3D-IODs) are also more advantageous than C-IODs because lost or broken 3D-IODs can be swiftly reproduced as the digital design is always available.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To prove in a non-inferiority study, with a margin of 0.3 point per Oral Health Impact Profile-20 (OHIP-20) question, that IODs made according to a fully digital workflow (3D-IODs), function as good as C-IODs with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This randomized crossover study included 36 fully edentulous patients who showed extreme resorption of the maxillary alveolar process, making denture retention difficult. After a maxillary bone augmentation and the installation of 4-6 implants, each patient wore both types of IOD for 1 year each, with the order reversed in two subsets of patients. The 3D-IODs and C-IODs were fabricated in advance for both jaws (at least two mandibular implants were already present). The OHIP-20 survey was performed at baseline, after 1 year (before the IOD switch), and after 2 years to determine patient satisfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS). The general health status was assessed using the Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Regarding the PROMs, patients preferred the 3D-IOD: the improvement on the overall OHIP scale (0-4), expressed as a mean, was 0.26 points greater than for the C-IOD (p < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1-100) with an increase of 7.37 points (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item \\\"emotional well-being,\\\" the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (p = 0.033).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical implant dentistry and related research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical implant dentistry and related research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13398\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical implant dentistry and related research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:种植体支持的可摘全口覆盖义齿(IOD)是一种常见的治疗方法,用于治疗缺牙症和传统义齿的故障。用传统方法(C-IODs)制作 IODs 非常耗时,但在数字化工作流程中,只需三次就能完成。数字制作的 IOD(3D-IOD)也比 C-IOD 更具优势,因为丢失或损坏的 3D-IOD 可以快速复制,因为数字设计始终可用。目的:在一项非劣效性研究中,以每个口腔健康影响档案-20(OHIP-20)问题 0.3 分的差值证明,根据全数字工作流程制作的 IOD(3D-IOD)在患者报告结果测量(PROM)方面与 C-IOD 一样好:这项随机交叉研究包括 36 名完全无牙颌的患者,他们的上颌骨牙槽突极度吸收,导致义齿难以固位。在进行上颌骨增量手术并安装 4-6 个种植体后,每位患者分别佩戴两种类型的 IOD 1 年,其中两组患者的佩戴顺序相反。3D-IOD和C-IOD是事先为两个下颌制作的(至少已有两个下颌种植体)。分别在基线期、1年后(IOD转换前)和2年后进行OHIP-20调查,使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)确定患者的满意度。一般健康状况采用简表(SF-36)问卷进行评估:结果:在PROMs方面,患者更倾向于3D-IOD:OHIP总评分(0-4分)的平均值比C-IOD高出0.26分(p 结论:与传统的C-IOD相比,3D-IOD的患者满意度更高:与传统制作的 C-IOD 相比,全数字化制作的 3D-IOD 的 OHIP-20 和满意度评分明显更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Fully digital versus conventional workflow: Are removable complete overdentures equally good? A randomized crossover trial.

Introduction: Implant-supported removable complete overdentures (IODs) are a common treatment in case of edentulism and malfunctioning of the conventional denture. Manufacturing IODs in a conventional way (C-IODs) is time-consuming, but in a digital workflow, this can be done in three sessions. Digitally produced IODs (3D-IODs) are also more advantageous than C-IODs because lost or broken 3D-IODs can be swiftly reproduced as the digital design is always available.

Purpose: To prove in a non-inferiority study, with a margin of 0.3 point per Oral Health Impact Profile-20 (OHIP-20) question, that IODs made according to a fully digital workflow (3D-IODs), function as good as C-IODs with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Materials and methods: This randomized crossover study included 36 fully edentulous patients who showed extreme resorption of the maxillary alveolar process, making denture retention difficult. After a maxillary bone augmentation and the installation of 4-6 implants, each patient wore both types of IOD for 1 year each, with the order reversed in two subsets of patients. The 3D-IODs and C-IODs were fabricated in advance for both jaws (at least two mandibular implants were already present). The OHIP-20 survey was performed at baseline, after 1 year (before the IOD switch), and after 2 years to determine patient satisfaction scores using a visual analog scale (VAS). The general health status was assessed using the Short Form (SF-36) questionnaire.

Results: Regarding the PROMs, patients preferred the 3D-IOD: the improvement on the overall OHIP scale (0-4), expressed as a mean, was 0.26 points greater than for the C-IOD (p < 0.001). This applied also to the VAS scale (1-100) with an increase of 7.37 points (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-36 scale, only for the item "emotional well-being," the 3D-IOD scored significantly better (p = 0.033).

Conclusion: Compared with conventionally fabricated C-IODs, fully digitally produced 3D-IODs resulted in significantly higher OHIP-20 and satisfaction scores.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of Photogrammetry, Intraoral Scanning, and Conventional Impression for Multiple Implants: An In Vitro Study. The Effect of NiTi Brush, Polishing Brush, and Chemical Agent on the Dental Implant Surface Morphology and Cytocompatibility. Transitional implants in computer-assisted implant surgery and fixed complete-arch provisionalization: A retrospective case series. Budget Impact Analysis: Digital Workflow Significantly Reduces Costs of Implant Supported Overdentures (IODs). Long-Term Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Hydrophilic Implants: A 10-Year Study in a Specialist Private Practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1