对比研究改良数字化印模与传统个性化印模在上前牙区种植美学修复中复制穿龈轮廓的临床效果。

选取2021年3—12月在东莞健力口腔医院已行美学区种植，需要继续行美学修复的患者，进行前瞻性临床研究。经种植临时冠获得理想的软组织塑形后，采取随机数抽签确定印模方法。改良数字化印模为试验组（数字化组），传统聚醚橡胶个性化印模为对照组（聚醚橡胶组）。主要评价指标为穿龈轮廓复制精确度，次要评价指标为印模时间、咬合及邻接精确度、患者VAS印模舒适度。采用两样本的t检验分析穿龈轮廓精确度（软件分析）、印模时间及舒适度的组间差异；采用Wilcoxon秩和检验分析咬合、邻接及穿龈轮廓精确度（主观评价）的组间差异。

每组纳入病例20例，共40例。数字化组穿龈形态误差为（0.39 ± 0.09）mm，明显小于聚醚橡胶组（0.60 ± 0.09）mm，差异有统计学意义（t = -7.525，P<0.001）；数字化组平均印模时间（19.5 ± 3.1）min，明显少于聚醚橡胶组（39.3 ± 6.1）min，差异有统计学意义（t = -13.017，P<0.001）。数字化组的咬合精确度（Z = -1.025，P = 0.305）及邻接精确度（Z = -1.233，P = 0.218）与聚醚橡胶组差异均无统计学意义，在穿龈轮廓复制精确度方面明显优于聚醚橡胶组，差异有统计学意义（Z = -4.684，P<0.001）；VAS得分数字化组（2.45 ± 1.10）显著低于聚醚橡胶组（7.00 ± 1.45），差异有统计学意义（t = 11.179，P<0.001）。

前牙美学区改良数字化印模技术与传统个性化印模技术两种方法的临床结果均较好，数字化印模技术在临床效率、精确性及舒适性上更具优势。

To compare the clinical outcomes of modified digital custom implant impression and conventional custom implant impression method in the upper anterior region.

A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted on patients who had received dental implants in upper anterior region in Jianli Stomatological Hospital of Dongguan from March 2021 to December 2021, and needed implant-supported prostheses. After provisional crowns were used to obtain ideal emergence profile, a random number lottery method was used to determine the groups. Patients with modified digital custom impression method were included in the experimental group, and those with conventional custom impression method were included in the control group. The primary evaluation criteria were the accuracy of replication of the emergence profile, and the secondary evaluation criteria were impression-taking time, accuracy of occlusal and adjacent relationships, and VAS score of comfort. Two-sample t-test was used to analyze group differences in accuracy of emergence profile (software assessment) , time to take impression and VAS score. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to analyze group differences in accuracy of occlusion, interdental relationships and emergence profile (subjective assessment) , and patients VAS score after final restoration.

A total of 40 patients were included in the study with 20 patients in each group. Acurracy of emergence profile (software assessment) of the digital group was (0.39 ± 0.09) mm, which was significantly less than that of the conventional group (0.60 ± 0.09) mm (t = -7.525, P<0.001) . There was no significant difference in the accuracy of occlusion (Z = -1.025, P = 0.305) and interdental relationships (Z = -1.233, P = 0.218) . The accuracy of emergence profile (subjective assessment) of the experimental group was significantly better than that of the conventional group (Z = -4.684, P<0.001) . The VAS score of the digital group (2.45 ± 1.10) was significantly lower than that of the conventional group (7.00 ± 1.45) (t = 11.179, P<0.001) .

The modified digital custom impression and conventional custom impression method could both get satisfying clinical outcomes. Moreover, the modified digital custom impression is more effective, precise and comforting than the conventional custom impression method.