Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Patient-reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double-blind crossover randomized controlled trial


Gintaute, Aiste; Zitzmann, Nicola U; Brägger, Urs; Weber, Karin; Joda, Tim (2023). Patient-reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO(2) implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double-blind crossover randomized controlled trial. Journal of Prosthodontics, 32:18-25.

Abstract

PURPOSE
This double-blind randomized controlled trial analyzed patient-reported outcome measures in terms of subjective patient satisfaction compared to objective dental evaluation of prosthetic treatment with 3-unit monolithic zirconium dioxide implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) in 3 digital workflows.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Twenty patients were restored with 3 iFDPs each on Straumann TL-implants with 2 completely digital workflows using different intraoral optical scanning systems with model-free fabrication of the restoration (Trios 3/3Shape [Test-1]; Virtuo Vivo/Straumann [Test-2]), and mixed analog-digital workflow with conventional impressions and digitized gypsum casts (Impregum/3M Espe [Control]). The order of impression-taking and the prosthetic try-in were randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs were compared for patient satisfaction and dental evaluation using ANOVA.
RESULTS
For iFDP evaluation, patients generally provided more favorable ratings than dental experts, regardless of the workflow. ANOVA revealed no significant difference for overall satisfaction when comparing Test-1, Test-2, or Control, either for patients (f-ratio: 0.13; p = 0.876) or dentist (f-ratio: 1.55: p = 0.221). Secondary, patients clearly favored the digital impression workflows over the conventional approach (f-ratio: 14.57; p < 0.001). Overall, the 3Shape workflow (Test-1) received the highest scores for all analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
The different digital workflows demonstrated minor influence on the subjective and objective evaluation of the monolithic zirconium dioxide iFDPs in nonesthetic regions; however, the dentist may significantly increase patient satisfaction by choosing intraoral scanning instead of conventional impressions. The dentist has to consider individual patients' needs to fulfill their expectations for a personalized solution.

Abstract

PURPOSE
This double-blind randomized controlled trial analyzed patient-reported outcome measures in terms of subjective patient satisfaction compared to objective dental evaluation of prosthetic treatment with 3-unit monolithic zirconium dioxide implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) in 3 digital workflows.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Twenty patients were restored with 3 iFDPs each on Straumann TL-implants with 2 completely digital workflows using different intraoral optical scanning systems with model-free fabrication of the restoration (Trios 3/3Shape [Test-1]; Virtuo Vivo/Straumann [Test-2]), and mixed analog-digital workflow with conventional impressions and digitized gypsum casts (Impregum/3M Espe [Control]). The order of impression-taking and the prosthetic try-in were randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs were compared for patient satisfaction and dental evaluation using ANOVA.
RESULTS
For iFDP evaluation, patients generally provided more favorable ratings than dental experts, regardless of the workflow. ANOVA revealed no significant difference for overall satisfaction when comparing Test-1, Test-2, or Control, either for patients (f-ratio: 0.13; p = 0.876) or dentist (f-ratio: 1.55: p = 0.221). Secondary, patients clearly favored the digital impression workflows over the conventional approach (f-ratio: 14.57; p < 0.001). Overall, the 3Shape workflow (Test-1) received the highest scores for all analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
The different digital workflows demonstrated minor influence on the subjective and objective evaluation of the monolithic zirconium dioxide iFDPs in nonesthetic regions; however, the dentist may significantly increase patient satisfaction by choosing intraoral scanning instead of conventional impressions. The dentist has to consider individual patients' needs to fulfill their expectations for a personalized solution.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
2 citations in Web of Science®
2 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

73 downloads since deposited on 27 Jan 2023
67 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > General Dentistry
Language:English
Date:1 January 2023
Deposited On:27 Jan 2023 09:54
Last Modified:28 Feb 2024 02:47
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc.
ISSN:1059-941X
OA Status:Green
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13589
PubMed ID:35938349
  • Content: Published Version
  • Language: English
  • Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)