Overview
This study compares conventional impression and cast fabrication to direct/indirect digital scannig and 3D printed casts regarding their accuracy in replicating the peri-implant emergence profile of single implants in the maxillary anterior region (FDI #15-25).
Description
Correct design of the peri-implant emergence profile (EP) is crucial for maintaining the health of the supracrestal complex and long-term success of the implant implant-prosthodontics. After its formation with a provisional restoration, its shape needs to be transferred to the final restoration via conventional elastomeric or digital (direct/indirect) impression taking.
Our aims are to investigate around maxillary anterior single implants in patients with thick gingival phenotype:
- the accuracy of direct digital impression vs indirect digital impression vs conventional elastomeric impression in capturing the EP and implant position
- the accuracy of 3D printed cast with conventional gingival mask vs conventional epoxy-resin cast with gingival mask in replicating the EP and implant position
- the amount of soft tissue collapse at 0,2,10,20 minutes following the removal of the provisional restoration in case of direct EP scanning
Eligibility
Inclusion Criteria:
- Adult above 18 yo
- No systematic deseases
- Good oral hygene (FMPS < 25%)
- Stable occlusion
- Thick phenotype
- Single missing maxilary anterior (FDI #15-25 position) tooth replaced with osseointegrated bone level impant
- Correctly formed soft tissue with CAD/CAM temporary abutment for min. 3 months
- Neighbouring teeth in place and in good condition
- Patient voluntarily accepts and signs the patient leaflets for the trial
Exclusion Criteria:
- Active periodontitis
- Peri-implant inflammation