Abstract
PURPOSE: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to compare treatment time of single-implant crowns for both digital and conventional workflows. In addition, prostheses made of polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN; Enamic®, Vita, Bad Säckingen, Germany) and lithium disilicate (LS2; NICE®, Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) were compared in each group.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 40 patients (n=40) who needed a single-implant crown on posterior regions were considered and randomly divided into digital workflows (n=20) with an intraoral scanner (IOS, iTero Elements 5D®, Align Technologies, San José, CA, USA) and conventional workflows (n=20) with impressions using polyether (Impregum™ Penta™, 3M ESPE, Landsberg am Lech, Germany). Then, each group was again distributed into 2 subgroups based on the crown materials used: PICN (n=10) and LS2 (n=10). Treatment time was calculated for both digital and conventional workflows. Analysis was done at 5% confidence interval (p-value <0.05). 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 sub-groups. Any of the implant crowns that had to be remade in each subgroup, were evaluated by the Fisher Exact test.
RESULTS: The entire process of digital and conventional workflows required 104.31 ± 20.83 minutes and 153.48 ± 16.35 minutes, respectively. Digital workflows were 39.2% more timesaving than the conventional protocol for the implant single crown treatment (p <0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Both digital and conventional workflow protocols can achieve a successful outcome of single-implant monolithic crowns in posterior areas. The digital protocol yielded a greater time saving over the conventional procedure in data acquisition and laboratory steps while the time for a clinical try-in and delivery were similar.
Jarangkul, Worapat