bachelorThesis
Moldagem convencional e digital para prótese total fixa implantossuportada: tempo, satisfação do paciente e efeito da quantidade de implantes
Fecha
2022-06-22Registro en:
MEDEIROS, Vitória Ramos. Moldagem convencional e digital para prótese total fixa implantossuportada: tempo, satisfação do paciente e efeito da quantidade de implantes. 2022. 35f. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Graduação em Odontologia) - Departamento de Odontologia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, 2022.
Autor
Medeiros, Vitória Ramos
Resumen
Purpose: To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as patient satisfaction. Material and methods: Seventeen participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). Each method consisted of two techniques that configure a workflow for the fabrication of passive framework in implant-supported fixed complete dentures. In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT). The outcomes were evaluated the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven questions. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. The Wilcoxon test was used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (p<.05). Results: The time with DI was shorter than the conventional (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) (p<0.0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) (p<0.0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (p<0.005). Conclusion: Digital impression required shorter chair time, had higher patient acceptance than conventional impression and lower arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required less clinical time for this type of impression.