Patient‐reported outcome measures compared to professional dental assessments of monolithic ZrO2 implant fixed dental prostheses in complete digital workflows: A double‐blind crossover randomized controlled trial. Issue 1 (23rd August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gintaute, Aiste; Zitzmann, Nicola U.; Brägger, Urs; Weber, Karin; Joda, Tim
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 32:Issue 1(2023)
• Page Start: 18
• Page End: 25
• Publication Date: 2022-08-23
• Subjects: clinical research -- dental implant -- digital dentistry -- fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) -- patient satisfaction; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13589
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: This double‐blind randomized controlled trial analyzed patient‐reported outcome measures in terms of subjective patient satisfaction compared to objective dental evaluation of prosthetic treatment with 3‐unit monolithic zirconium dioxide implant fixed dental prostheses (iFDPs) in 3 digital workflows. Material and methods: Twenty patients were restored with 3 iFDPs each on Straumann TL‐implants with 2 completely digital workflows using different intraoral optical scanning systems with model‐free fabrication of the restoration (Trios 3/3Shape [Test‐1]; Virtuo Vivo/Straumann [Test‐2]), and mixed analog‐digital workflow with conventional impressions and digitized gypsum casts (Impregum/3M Espe [Control]). The order of impression‐taking and the prosthetic try‐in were randomly allocated. Sixty iFDPs were compared for patient satisfaction and dental evaluation using ANOVA. Results: For iFDP evaluation, patients generally provided more favorable ratings than dental experts, regardless of the workflow. ANOVA revealed no significant difference for overall satisfaction when comparing Test‐1, Test‐2, or Control, either for patients (f‐ratio: 0.13; p = 0.876) or dentist (f‐ratio: 1.55: p = 0.221). Secondary, patients clearly favored the digital impression workflows over the conventional approach (f‐ratio: 14.57; p < 0.001). Overall, the 3Shape workflow (Test‐1) received the highest scores for all analyses. Conclusions: The different digital workflows demonstrated minor influence on the subjective and objective evaluation of the monolithic zirconium dioxide iFDPs in nonesthetic regions; however, the dentist may significantly increase patient satisfaction by choosing intraoral scanning instead of conventional impressions. The dentist has to consider individual patients' needs to fulfill their expectations for a personalized solution.