Journal of Oral Science Research

Journal of Oral Science Research ›› 2022, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (9): 837-842.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.09.009

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Accuracy of Recording Soft Tissue Contour by Different Impression Techniques after Interim Restoration of Single Implant in the Aesthetic Area.

JIA Xiangbin1, CAO Xiao1, ZHANG Yuchen1, SUI Yongchao2, ZHOU Qin1*.   

  1. 1. Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University; Clinical Research Center of Shaanxi Province for Dental and Maxillofacial Diseases, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University; Department of Oral Implantology, College & Hospital of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an 710004, China;
    2. Lianhu Dental Care Association of Xi'an, Xi'an 710003, China.
  • Received:2022-03-21 Published:2022-09-26

PDF (PC)

168

Abstract: Objective: To measure and compare the accuracy of soft tissue contour recording by different impression methods after temporary restoration of single implant in aesthetic area. Methods: Sixteen patients were enrolled and worn implant-supported temporary crowns for at least 3 months. Digital impression and customized impression were collected. The digital indirect approach model was used as reference model (MR), and the discrepancy of gingival margin and papilla (ΔH), facial mucosa convexity (ΔDFM), and emergence profile (ΔDEP) between digital direct approach model (DS group), customized impression model (MCI group) and reference models were measured and compared. Results: In DS group, compared with MR, the height of gingival margin and papilla decreased gradually over time, ΔH was -0.21~-0.39 mm in average at 4min. The facial mucosa convexity was slightly collapsed at 1mm subgingival (-0.15±0.09)mm at 4 min, and remained stable at 2-3 mm subgingival, the emergence profile also gradually shrank with time, and the ΔDEP in the middle and apical region was significantly greater than that in the coronal region. Compared with the reference model, the height of gingival margin and papilla in MCI was decreased by 0.06-0.27 mm on average, which was similar to DS0.1. The facial mucosa was slightly bulging from the surface of MR (mean 0.03-0.09mm). Emergence profile was also narrowed, and ΔDEP in the apical region was significantly larger than that in the coronal and middle region. Compared with DS0.1, ΔDEP in the labial subgingival 1mm and 2mm of MCI was smaller, and there was no statistical significance in other sites. Conclusion: The error of digital direct approach increased gradually with the scanning time, which implies that the scanning should be completed as soon as possible. There are also errors in the customized impression transfer of peri-implant soft tissue contour. Compared with immediate scanning after removal of IR, the accuracy of recording gingival margin and papilla is similar, but the error of emergence profile is smaller.

Key words: implant restoration, aesthetic, impression, emergence profile