Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

CAD/CAM - international magazine of digital dentistry, Italian Edition, No.3, 2017

case report _ implantoprotesi grandi artefatti di immagine che limitano le ap- plicazioni di CBCT20. Per ovviare a tali inconve- nienti e per una migliore accuratezza, la protesi dentale rimovibile è stata digitalizzata utilizzan- do uno scanner intra-orale21. Gli scanner intra-orali si stanno rapidamente diffondendo all’interno delle cliniche odontoia- triche per l’acquisizione d’impronte digitali dei denti e degli impianti, migliorando anche il flusso di lavoro con altre tecnologie digitali già presenti. Le impronte ottiche risultano essere più confor- tevoli per il paziente, vengono ottimizzati i tempi e migliorata la precisione e la facilità operativa per il medico24-28. Una recente revisione sistema- tica della letteratura e una meta-analisi condotta da Chochlidakis et al.23 conclude che lo scanner intra-orale può essere utilizzato in modo sicu- ro per prendere impronte di abutment singoli e multipli nei pazienti con dentatura23. Tuttavia, mancano ancora prove sulla possibilità di utiliz- zare scanner intra-orali per prendere impronte per restauri estesi o in caso di pazienti comple- _bibliografia 1. Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Canullo L, Xhanari E, Polizzi G. Guided surgery for single-implant placement: a critical review. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2016 Dec; 2(4):8–14. 2. Polizzi G, cantoni T, Pasini E, Tallarico M. Immediate loading of variable-th- read expanding tapered-body implants placed into maxillary post-extrac- tion or healed sites using a guided surgery approach: An up-to-five year retrospective analysis. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2016 Sep; 2(3):50–60. 3. Tallarico M, Meloni SM, Canullo L, Caneva M, Polizzi G. Five-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Patients Rehabilitated with Im- mediately Loaded Maxillary Cross-Arch Fixed Dental Prosthesis Supported by Four or Six Implants Placed Using Guided Surgery. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016 Oct;18(5):965-972. 4. Pozzi A, Tallarico M, Marchetti M, Scarfo B, Esposito M. Computer-guided versus free-hand placement of immediately loaded dental implants: 1-year post-loading results of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2014 Autumn; 7(3):229-42. 5. Vermeulen J. The Accuracy of Implant Placement by Experienced Surgeons: Guided vs Freehand Approach in a Simulated Plastic Model. Int J Oral Ma- xillofac Implants. 2017 Mar/Apr;32(3):617–624. 6. Van Steenberghe D., Glauser R., Blomback U., Andersson M., Schutyser F., Pettersson A., Wendelhag I. Computed tomographic scan-derived cu- stomized surgical template and fixed prosthesis for flapless surgery and immediate loading of implants in fully edentulous maxillae: a prospective multicentre study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7 Suppl 1:S111-20. 7. Jemt T. & Hjalmarsson L. (2012) In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks: a comparison between “virtual” and “physical” assessments of fit using two different techniques of measure- ments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 May; 14 Suppl 1:e175-82. 8. Pozzi A., Tallarico M., Mangani F., Barlattani A. Different implant impression techniques for edentulous patients treated with CAD/CAM complete-arch prostheses: a randomised controlled trial reporting data at 3 year postloa- ding. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013 Winter; 6(4):325-40. 9. Papaspyridakos, P., Chen C.J., Gallucci G.O., Doukoudakis A., WeberH.P. & Chronopoulos V. (2014) Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug; 29(4):836-45. 10. Amin S., Weber H.-P., Finkelman M., Rafie El K., Kudara Y., Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative stu- dy. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Dec 31. 11. Kattadiyil M.T., Mursic Z., AlRumaih H., Goodacre C.J. Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental prosthesis fabrication. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep; 112(3):444-8. 12. Wu J., Li Y., Zhang Y. Use of intraoral scanning and 3-dimensional printing in the fabrication of a removable partial denture for a patient with limited mouth opening. J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 May; 148 (5):338-341. 15. Tallarico M., Xhanari E., Kadiu B., Scrascia R. Implant rehabilitation of ex- tremely atrophic mandibles (Cawood and Howell Class VI) with a fixed- removable solution supported by four implants: one-year results from a preliminary prospective case series study. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Jun; 3(1):32–40. 16. Abduo J., Bennani V., Waddell N., Lyons K., Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 May-Jun; 25(3):506-15. 17. Eisenmann E., Mokabberi A., Walter M.H., Freesmeyer W.B. Improving the fit of implant-supported superstructures using the spark erosion technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Nov-Dec; 19(6):810-8. 18. Jabero M., Sarment D.P. Advanced surgical guidance technology: a review. Implant Dent. 2006 Jun; 15(2):135-42. 19. Loubele M., Bogaerts R., Van Dijck E., Pauwels R., Vanheusden S., Suetens P., et al. Comparison between effective radiation dose of CBCT and MSCT scan- ners for dentomaxillofacial applications. Eur J Radiol. 2009 Sep; 71(3):461-8. 20. Niu T., Zhu L. Overview of X-ray scatter in Cone-beam computed tomo- graphy and its correction methods. Current Medical Imaging Reviews. 2010; 6 (2):82–89. 21. Mario Imburgia, Silvia Logozzo, Uli Hauschild, Giovanni Veronesi, Carlo Manga- no, and Francesco Guido Mangano. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017 Jun; 17: 92. 22. Mangano F.G., Veronesi G., Hauschild U., Mijiritsky E., Mangano C. Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Compara- tive in Vitro Study. PLoS One. 2016 Sep 29; 11 (9):e0163107. 23. Chochlidakis K.M., Papaspyridakos P., Geminiani A., Chen C.J., Feng I.J., Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodon- tics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Aug; 116(2):184-190.e12. 24. Wismeijer D., Mans R., van Genuchten M., Reijers H.A. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impres- sion material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Oct; 25 (10):1113-8. 25. Joda T., Lenherr P., Dedem P., Kovaltschuk I., Bragger U., Zitzmann N.U. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Sep 5. doi:10.1111/clr.1298. 26. Tsirogiannis P., Reissmann D.R., Heydecke G. Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated af- ter digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta- analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Sep; 116 (3):328-335.e2. 27. Almeidae Silva J.S., Erdelt K., Edelhoff D., Araújo E., Stimmelmayr M., Vieira L.C., Güth J.F. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18 (2):515-23. 13. Fang J.-H., An X., Jeong S.-M., Choi B.-H. Development of complete dentu- res based on digital intraoral impressions-Case report. J Prosthodont Res. 2017 Jun 15. pii: S1883-1958(17)30049-X. 28. Ender A., Zimmermann M., Attin T., Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventio- nal and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Sep; 20 (7):1495-504. 14. Tallarico M., Meloni S.M. Open-cohort prospective study on early implant failure and physiological marginal remodeling expected using sandblasted and acid- etched bone level implants featuring an 11° Morse taper connection within one year after loading. J Oral Science Rehabilitation. 2017 Mar; 3(1):68–79. 29. Lin W.S., Chou J.C., Metz M.J., Harris B.T., Morton D. Use of intraoral digital scanning for a CAD/CAM-fabricated milled bar and superstructure fra- mework for an implant-supported, removable complete dental prosthesis. J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jun; 113 (6):509-15. 16 3_2017

Sito