3D-printed and conventional provisional single crown fabrication on anterior implants: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

ObjectivesThe present study aims to compare provisional single crowns on anterior implants made using conventional PMMA and 3D-printed workflows. The study assessed the occurrence of failures, color variation, signs of early deterioration, operating time, and patients' satisfaction with the treatment through a randomized controlled trial. MethodsThis study was conducted as a randomized controlled trial, following the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines. Patients were included in the study after meeting the eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned to one of two groups (conventional and 3D-printed). FDI criteria, visible plaque index (VPI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and color variation were considered as the primary outcomes. Operating time and patient satisfaction were also assessed as secondary outcomes. Fisher’s exact test was performed to analyze the association between the primary and secondary outcomes and the study groups. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the mean VAS satisfaction scores between the conventional PMMA and 3D-printed groups (STATA 14™, with an α = 0.05). ResultsA total of 42 provisional single crowns (n = 21) were made for 33 patients. Only the fracture parameter (FDI) showed a statistically significant difference, with 3D-printed provisionals exhibiting higher rates of catastrophic failures compared to conventional ones (p = 0.05). Although the operating time for the 3D-printed group was shorter (p < 0.001), no statistical difference observed in patients' satisfaction regarding esthetics, phonetics, chewing, or comfort. Significance3D-printed and conventional PMMA provisional single crowns showed comparable clinical performance, except for the observed fracture types. Although 3D-printed provisional restorations showed a shorter operating time, overall patients’ satisfaction was not affected.