Objective
Comparison of soft tissue replication between conventional and digital impressions for definitive single unit implant rehabilitation in the esthetic zone.
Materials and Methods
Six patients were recruited according to inclusion criteria for this cross‐over pilot study and submitted to a conventional silicone implant impression with customized coping and a digital impression with an intraoral scanner. Stereolithography files obtained from the same patient were superimposed with appropriate software and trueness evaluated between methods at predetermined locations (56 in hard and soft tissues and 18 in the emergence profile, per patient). Results were presented as mean root mean square (RMS) ± 95% confidence interval and effect size calculated with Hedges' g ± 95%. Mann‐Whitney and Kruskal‐Wallis were performed when appropriate and α was set at .05.
Results
Trueness between methods equated to 51.08[45.68;56.47] μm and 60.46[52.29;68.62] μm in hard and soft tissues, respectively. Soft tissue replication by intraoral scanner acquisition corresponded to a statistically significant RMS of 243.89[209.15;278.63] μm equating to a Hedges' g of 1.52[1.22;1.82] which corresponded to a large effect size.
Conclusions
The proposed method could be considered for soft tissues assessment and the results suggest that intraoral impression techniques produce statistically significant changes in peri‐implant soft tissue replication, although below the clinically detectable threshold.
Clinical Significance
The proposed technique allows for the 3D determination of peri‐implant tissues changes in digital models with higher sensitivity than visual techniques, thus presenting itself as a promising alternative in clinical studies and that the use of an intraoral scanner obtained significant differences in the soft tissue emergence profile replication when compared with the gold standard.
Objective: To evaluate dental prophylaxis influence in tooth color assessment with the use of different methods. Materials and methods: Volunteers were consecutively recruited and screened according to appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria. Each participant's upper right central incisive and canine color was measured before and after dental prophylaxis with a one-week interval. Tooth color assessment was performed by calibrated operators and the patient using a VITA Classical shade guide and by spectrophotometric methods with a proper device (SpectroShade). Color was reported as mean with SD of Commission Internationale De l'Eclairage (CIE) L*a*b* values, ΔE ab and ΔE 00. Oneway analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc were performed to assess differences between methods and paired t test for assessing differences in tooth color coordinates after dental prophylaxis. Values of P < .05 were taken as significant. Results: Fifty patients were included. Self-assessed dental prophylaxis effects equated to a significantly different mean ΔE 00 value of 2.3 ± 1.7 (P < .01), when compared to the calibrated operator reported 0.8 ± 1.1 and the spectrophotometer 1.0 ± 0.5. Half of volunteer's ΔE 00 values surpassed the acceptability threshold, when compared to 28% from investigator and 10% from spectrophotometer. Conclusion: Performing a dental prophylaxis did have an influence in tooth color perception with a higher self-perceived effect in the patient assessment. Clinical significance: The results of this study suggest that performing professional dental prophylaxis presented a perceived effect in tooth color regardless of the method used being that patients precepted whiter and less yellowish teeth. Since extrinsic stain is considered as one of the factors that could influence tooth color assessment, performing professional dental prophylaxis prior to composite or ceramic color selection in anterior teeth restorations could consequently increase treatment predictability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.