Abstract
Limited evidence is available comparing the differences between pre-operative and post-operative 3D implant positions from the viewpoint of prosthetics. We aimed to investigate the differences between preplanned positions of virtual provisional restorations and their actual positions following fully guided single-implant placement. Ten maxillary typodonts with missing right central incisors were imaged using cone-beam computed tomography, and digital impressions were obtained using an intraoral scanner. These data were imported into implant-planning software, following which the provisional restorations were designed. After data superimposition, an appropriate implant position was determined, and a computer-assisted implant surgical guide was designed for each typodont. Orders generated from the implant-planning software were imported into relevant computer-aided design software to design the custom abutments. The abutments, provisional restorations, and surgical guides were fabricated, and each restoration was cemented to the corresponding abutments, generating a screw-type immediate provisional restoration. The implants were placed using the surgical guides, and the screw-type provisional restorations were engaged to the implants. The typodonts were then rescanned using the intraoral scanner. The restorations designed at the treatment planning stage were compared with those in the post-operative scan using metrology software. The angular deviation around the central axis of the implant was measured, and the differences in the crown position were converted to root mean square (RMS) values. The post-operative provisional restorations exhibited an absolute angular deviation of 6.94 ± 5.78° and an RMS value of 85.8 ± 20.2 µm when compared with their positions in the pre-operative stage. Within the limitations of the present in vitro study, the results highlight the potential application of customized prefabricated immediate provisional restorations after single-implant placement.
Highlights
Digital dentistry has become a leading field in dental practice today and has taken dental implantology to a new level [1,2]
Radical improvements in the accuracy and resolution of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), intraoral, tabletop, and face scanners, the development of dental computer-aided design (CAD) software and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology, and the application of additive manufacturing technology in the fabrication of computer-assisted implant surgical guides have all contributed to this revolution [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
The resultant data formats differ from each other: CBCT uses the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format, while intraoral and tabletop scanners use the standard tessellation language (STL) format, and face scanners use the object code (OBJ) format [15]
Summary
Digital dentistry has become a leading field in dental practice today and has taken dental implantology to a new level [1,2]. Radical improvements in the accuracy and resolution of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), intraoral, tabletop, and face scanners, the development of dental computer-aided design (CAD) software and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technology, and the application of additive manufacturing technology in the fabrication of computer-assisted implant surgical guides have all contributed to this revolution [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. The digital workflow in implantology starts from data acquisition, for which CBCT and the scanners are used [9]. The resultant data formats differ from each other: CBCT uses the Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) format, while intraoral and tabletop scanners use the standard tessellation language (STL) format, and face scanners use the object code (OBJ) format [15]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
