İMPLANT DESTEKLİ PROTEZLERDE KONVANSİYONEL VE DİJİTAL ÖLÇÜ: SİSTEMATİK DERLEME

Year 2021, Volume: 8 Issue: 3, 888 - 894, 31.12.2021

Simel Karaca , Ozgur Inan

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.781806

Abstract

Amaç: Alçı modellere implant pozisyonlarını aktarabilmek için kullanılan direkt (açık kaşık) ve indirekt teknik (kapalı kaşık) olmak üzere 2 temel konvansiyonel ölçü tekniği vardır. Ağız içi tarayıcıların gelişmesiyle dijital ölçüler konvansiyonel implant ölçülerine alternatif olarak önerilmiştir. Bu derlemenin amacı, implant ölçülerinde konvansiyonel ve dijital yöntemlerin doğruluğunu değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: PubMed ve Google Akademik kullanılarak elektronik ortamda literatür taraması yapılarak 2015 yılı ve sonrasında yapılan çalışmalar dikkate alınmıştır.
Bulgular: Dahil etme ve hariç tutma kriterleri uygulanarak 12 makale çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. 10 makale in vitro ve 2 makale klinik çalışmadır. Üç in vitro çalışma ve bir klinik çalışma konvansiyonel implant ölçüsü ile dijital tekniğin doğruluğunu karşılaştırmıştır. Parsiyel dişsiz hastalar için 4 çalışmadan ikisi açık kaşık tekniğinin dijital ölçülerden daha doğru olduğunu, bir çalışma kapalı kaşık tekniğinin dijital ölçülerden daha doğru olduğunu ve bir çalışma ise konvansiyonel tekniğin dijital ölçü ile benzer sonuçlar verdiğini bildirmiştir. Tam dişsiz hastalar için 8 çalışmadan biri açık kaşık ölçü tekniğinin dijital ölçüyle benzer doğruluk gösterdiğini, iki çalışma splintli açık kaşık ölçü tekniğinin dijital ölçüden daha doğru olduğunu, üç çalışma dijital ölçünün daha doğru olduğunu ve bir çalışma ise splintli açık kaşık ölçü tekniğinin dijital ölçü ile benzer doğrulukta olduğunu bildirmiştir.
Sonuç: İncelenen toplam 12 makaleden beşi implant ölçülerinde dijital tekniğin daha az doğru olduğunu belirtmiştir ve yedisi ise dijital ölçü kullanımını teşvik etmektedir.

Keywords

konvansiyonel ölçü, dijital ölçü, implant ölçüsü

References

• Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1253-62.
• Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(1):102-9.
• Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(6):715-9.
• Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):543-9.
• Ribeiro P, Herrero-Climent M, Díaz-Castro C, Ríos-Santos JV, Padrós R, Mur JG, et al. Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions-An In Vitro Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8).
• Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):574-9.
• Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for "All-on-Four" Restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(2):324-30.
• Moura RV, Kojima AN, Saraceni CHC, Bassolli L, Balducci I, Özcan M, et al. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques for Implant Restorations. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e530-e5.
• Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):186-94.
• Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Implant Impression Approach: A Three-Dimensional Comparative In Vitro Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(4):792–9.
• Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. A Comparison of implant impression precision: Different materials and techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(2):e151-e7.
• Joseph TM, Ravichandran R, Lylajam S, Viswabharan P, Janardhanan K, Rajeev S. Evaluation of positional accuracy in multiple implants using four different splinting materials: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18(3):239-47.
• Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(4):e902-e8.
• Mühlemann S, Greter EA, Park JM, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(9):931-6.
• Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360-7.
• Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(10):1318-23.
• Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(4):465-72.
• Sawase T, Kuroshima S. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(1):57-61.
• Bohner L, Hanisch M, De Luca Canto G, Mukai E, Sesma N, Neto PT. Accuracy of Casts Fabricated by Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions. J Oral Implantol. 2019;45(2):94-9.
• Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(6):648-53.
• Wulfman C, Naveau A, Rignon-Bret C. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(2):161-7.
• Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2015;59(4):236-42.
• Lee SJ, Kim SW, Lee JJ, Cheong CW. Comparison of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Scanners: Evaluation of Surface Topography and Precision. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8(2).
• Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz MF, Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: Direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;24(1):e89-e95.
• Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, Petridis H. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(2):107-13.
• Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:3761750.
• Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2020.
• Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z, et al. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(4):281-6.
• Brånemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50(3):399-410.
• Kahramanoğlu E, Özkan YK. İmplant destekli protezlerde pasif uyum. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. 2012;15(3):255-63.
• Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6(3):172-80.
• Carr AB, Gerard DA, Larsen PE. The response of bone in primates around unloaded dental implants supporting prostheses with different levels of fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76(5):500-9.
• Millington ND, Leung T. Inaccurate fit of implant superstructures. Part 1: Stresses generated on the superstructure relative to the size of fit discrepancy. Int J Prosthodont. 1995;8(6):511-6.
• Papaspyridakos P, Hirayama H, Chen CJ, Ho CH, Chronopoulos V, Weber HP. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(9):1099-105.
• Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5).