Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare digital and traditional prosthetic workflow for posterior maxillary\nrestorations supported by an upright and a distally tilted implant at 3-year follow-up. Materials and Methods. Twenty-four patients\nwere treated in the posterior maxilla with 24 immediately loaded axial and 24 distally tilted implants supporting 3-unit or 4-\nunit screw-retained prostheses. Three months after initial loading patients were randomly stratified into two groups: definitive\ntraditional impressions were carried out in the control group, while digital impressions were performed in the test group. The\nframework-implant connection accuracy was evaluated by means intraoral digital radiographs at 3, 6, 12, and 36 months of\nfollow-up examinations. Outcome considerations comprised implant and prosthetic survival and success rates,marginal bone level\nchanges, and required clinical time to take impressions. Results. A total of 24 patients received immediately loaded screw-retained\nprostheses supported by an upright and a distally tilted implant (total 48 implants). No implant dropouts occurred, showing an\noverall survival rate of 100% for both groups. None of the 24 fixed prostheses were lost during the observation period (prosthetic\nsurvival rate of 100%). No statistically significant differences in marginal bone loss were found between control and test groups.\nThe digital impression procedure required on average less clinical time than the conventional procedure. Conclusions. Clinical and\nradiologic results suggest that digital impression is a predictable procedure for posterior maxillary restorations supported by an\nupright and a distally tilted implant.
Loading....