Effect of conventionally fabricated and three‑dimensional printed provisional restorations on hard and soft peri‑implant tissues in the mandibular posterior region: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to conduct a randomized controlled clinical
trial to compare and evaluate the effect of provisional restorations fabricated by two techniques,
namely, conventional and three‑dimensional (3D) printing processes on the peri‑implant hard and
soft tissues over early nonfunctional loaded implants in the mandibular posterior region.
Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted across 24 subjects
broadly divided into two groups with 12 dental implants each, i.e., GpIC with conventionally
fabricated provisional restoration and GpIID with 3D printed fabricated provisional restoration.
The prosthetic phase was carried out at 2 weeks, and subjects were evaluated at baseline (at
the time of prosthesis placement), 2 months, and 4 months for peri‑implant marginal bone
level, mucosal suppuration, sulcular probing depth, and modified sulcular bleeding index. Patient
satisfaction was assessed using 5‑item questionnaires at 4 months. The intragroup comparison
for all the data was done using Wilcoxon signed‑rank test. The intergroup comparison for all
the data was done using Mann–Whitney U‑test. The comparison of frequency of responses
between GpIC and GpIID was done using Chi‑square test. P < 0.05 was considered to be
statistically significant.
Results: Nonsignificant difference was observed in all the hard and soft tissue parameters between
the groups at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months (P ˃ 0.05). Improvement in bleeding on probing
was found to be greater around dental implants restored with 3D printed provisional restoration
than dental implants restored with conventionally fabricated provisional restoration from baseline
to 4 months of follow‑up, and the difference in finding was statistically significant (P < 0.05). There
was a statistically nonsignificant difference seen for the frequencies between the groups (P > 0.05)
for all questions related to patient satisfaction.
Conclusion: The effect of conventionally fabricated and 3D printed provisional restorations on
peri‑implant hard and soft tissues was comparable to each other on an early nonfunctionally loaded
implant in the mandibular posterior region.
Key Words: Dental implants, dental prosthesis, three‑dimensional printing

Highlight

 Prachi Jain: Pubmed,Google Scholar