Display options
Cite
Capparé P, Ferrini F, Ruscica C, et al. Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Immediate Loading in Single-Implant Restoration: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Biology (Basel). 2021;10(12)doi: 10.3390/biology10121281.
Capparé, P., Ferrini, F., Ruscica, C., Pantaleo, G., Tetè, G., & Gherlone, E. F. (2021). Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Immediate Loading in Single-Implant Restoration: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Biology, 10(12), . https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10121281
Capparé, Paolo, et al. "Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Immediate Loading in Single-Implant Restoration: A Randomized Clinical Trial." Biology vol. 10,12 (2021). doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10121281
Capparé P, Ferrini F, Ruscica C, Pantaleo G, Tetè G, Gherlone EF. Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Immediate Loading in Single-Implant Restoration: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Biology (Basel). 2021 Dec 06;10(12). doi: 10.3390/biology10121281. PMID: 34943196; PMCID: PMC8698626.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Biology (Basel). 2021 Dec 06;10(12). doi: 10.3390/biology10121281.

Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Immediate Loading in Single-Implant Restoration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Biology

Paolo Capparé, Francesco Ferrini, Corrado Ruscica, Giuseppe Pantaleo, Giulia Tetè, Enrico Felice Gherlone

Affiliations

  1. Dental School, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele, 20132 Milan, Italy.
  2. Department of Dentistry, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital and Dental School, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20123 Milan, Italy.
  3. UniSR-Social.Lab, Faculty of Psychology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, 20123 Milan, Italy.

PMID: 34943196 PMCID: PMC8698626 DOI: 10.3390/biology10121281

Abstract

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the immediate-loading protocol, in single restorations in the esthetic zone, by comparing the digital workflow in a test group (TG) vs. the analogical workflow in a control group (CG). A total of 50 patients were enrolled, requiring single hopeless tooth extraction. Twenty-five patients (TG) were randomly assigned to the immediate-loading protocol using the digital workflow, and twenty-five patients (CG) were assigned to the conventional workflow. Clinical and radiographic parameters were evaluated at the time of implant insertion (baseline) and after 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. A clinician blind to conditions measured the Pink Esthetic Score (PES), as well as patient satisfaction. At 12-month follow-up, a cumulative survival rate of 100% was reported for all implants. No failures or biological complications were observed. No statistically significant differences were detected in the mean values of marginal bone loss and PES between the TG (0.12 ± 0.66 mm for MBL, 7.75 ± 0.89 for PES) and the CG (0.15 ± 0.54 mm for MBL, 7.50 ± 0.89 for PES). In 11 cases of TG, and 10 cases of CG, a one-year follow-up period showed an increased marginal bone level. No statistically significant differences were found in the mean total PES between test (7.75 ± 0.89) and control (7.5 ± 0.81) conditions. Furthermore, a customer satisfaction survey showed that patients preferred the digital workflow over the conventional workflow procedure (97.6 ± 4.3 vs. 69.2 ± 13.8). Digital workflow was more time-efficient than conventional workflow (97.2 ± 7.3 vs. 81.2 ± 11.3). Within the limitations of this study, no statistically significant differences were found between digital and traditional workflow.

Keywords: dental implant; digital dentistry; immediate loading; single implant

References

  1. New Microbiol. 2016 Jan;39(1):49-56 - PubMed
  2. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Dec;14(6):839-51 - PubMed
  3. Health Policy. 2016 Jan;120(1):1-15 - PubMed
  4. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002 Jan-Feb;17(1):78-85 - PubMed
  5. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Feb;44(2):239-44 - PubMed
  6. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Feb 14;16(4): - PubMed
  7. Implant Dent. 2002;11(1):87-94 - PubMed
  8. J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6):1737-1749 - PubMed
  9. J Periodontol. 2009 Jan;80(1):140-51 - PubMed
  10. Dent Clin North Am. 2004 Apr;48(2):vi-vii, 445-70 - PubMed
  11. BMC Oral Health. 2019 Oct 29;19(1):230 - PubMed
  12. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Sep-Oct;30(5):1047-53 - PubMed
  13. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Sep 18;34(5):1629-1632 - PubMed
  14. Periodontol 2000. 2019 Feb;79(1):168-177 - PubMed
  15. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004 Dec;15(6):625-42 - PubMed
  16. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):732-7 - PubMed
  17. Eur J Orthod. 2016 Aug;38(4):422-8 - PubMed
  18. New Microbiol. 2021 Jan;44(1):1-11 - PubMed
  19. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Sep 19;17(1):124 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Periodontol. 2019 Mar;46(3):363-372 - PubMed
  21. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2008 Dec;28(6):551-7 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Med. 2019 May 07;8(5): - PubMed
  23. Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019;12(4):501-510 - PubMed
  24. Neurosurgery. 2021 Aug 16;89(3):383-394 - PubMed
  25. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020 Nov-Dec;34(6 Suppl. 3):91-93 - PubMed
  26. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005 Sep-Oct;20(5):753-61 - PubMed
  27. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Sep;114(3):403-6.e1 - PubMed
  28. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Oct;14(5):663-71 - PubMed
  29. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 Jul-Aug;12(4):454-62 - PubMed
  30. J Prosthodont. 2015 Jun;24(4):313-21 - PubMed
  31. Materials (Basel). 2020 Feb 25;13(5): - PubMed
  32. Case Rep Dent. 2014;2014:327368 - PubMed
  33. J Periodontol. 2008 Feb;79(2):260-70 - PubMed
  34. J Periodontol. 2009 Apr;80(4):609-17 - PubMed
  35. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Apr;16(2):185-93 - PubMed
  36. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994 Dec;5(4):239-44 - PubMed
  37. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012 Oct;24(5):299-308 - PubMed
  38. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Nov;25(11):1304-1306 - PubMed
  39. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Feb;17(1):52-70 - PubMed
  40. Periodontol 2000. 1994 Feb;4:81-6 - PubMed
  41. BMC Oral Health. 2014 Jan 30;14:10 - PubMed
  42. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020 Sep;31(9):825-835 - PubMed
  43. J Prosthet Dent. 2018 Feb;119(2):214-219 - PubMed
  44. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011 Feb;22(2):151-6 - PubMed
  45. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1993 Sep;4(3):158-61 - PubMed
  46. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Aug;18(4):725-34 - PubMed
  47. J Biomech. 2003 Nov;36(11):1649-58 - PubMed
  48. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Dec;26(12):1430-5 - PubMed
  49. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Dec;14(6):828-38 - PubMed

Publication Types