Attempts have been made to develop a digital workflow that allows the subgingival form of the provisional restoration to be accurately transferred to the final restoration to provide appropriate cleansability, esthetics, and function.

Joda et al reported a method to manually individualize the scanbody, which has a circular diameter based on the emergence profile created by the provisional restoration.1  They developed a method for individualization of prefabricated implant transfer posts based on conventional impression-taking procedures.2,3  This method prevents supra-implant soft tissue collapse during intraoral scanning; however, a coronal configuration based on the provisional restoration cannot be assigned to the final restoration.

Monaco et al described an intraoral scanning method for replication of peri-implant soft tissue contours, as well as the emergence profile of the provisional restoration.4  They prepared an intraoral Standard Triangulation Language (STL) image to detect the implant position with a standardized implant scanbody (STL1). In this method, the lower part of the image, containing the inner surface of the supra-implant emergence profile and broken down, soft peri-implant tissue, is removed. The vestibular and palatal sides of the provisional restoration and adjacent teeth are intraorally detected, and the provisional restoration is removed from the mouth to scan its subgingival component (STL2). Data regarding the portion of the provisional restoration below the gingival margin, as well as the emergence profile and vestibular mucosa, are retained. STL1 and STL2 are digitally superimposed to produce STL3, comprising the scanbody, its relative 3D implant position, and data regarding the peri-implant soft tissue and emergence profile. This method uses subgingival data describing the provisional restoration; the coronal form of the final restoration is fabricated manually.

These methods transfer the provisional subgingival components to the final restoration; we hypothesized that data regarding the coronal form of the provisional restoration could enable provisional supra- and subgingival components to be assigned to the final restoration. Here, we report on the clinical application of our workflow that involves scanning and superimposing morphological data with an intraorally installed provisional restoration, intraorally connected scanbody, and extraorally scanned whole morphology of the provisional restoration. This approach could transfer the whole morphology from the provisional implant restoration to the final restoration. In addition, we digitally analyzed the volumetric discrepancies between the restorations.

Case

In this case, a 63-year-old male patient presented with a missing right mandibular second molar (tooth #31). He had previously received an implant body (ø4.1 × 12.0 mm Bone Level Implant RC, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) and had undergone installation of a screw-retained, connected provisional restoration (Figures 1 and 2). Following installation, a dentist adjusted the provisional restoration (namely, its crown morphology and subgingival contour); function and cleansability were then confirmed to be appropriate for the patient. Therefore, the provisional restoration needed to be replaced with a final restoration; we opted to implement our novel procedure. The patient provided informed consent to participate in this study.

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Panoramic radiographs of the patient after installation of the implant body. An implant body was placed in the right mandibular second molar region (#31). Figure 2. Intraoral view of the patient. A screw-retained provisional restoration was installed in the right mandibular second molar region and adjusted in order to achieve satisfactory oral function and cleansability. (a) Mandibular occlusal view; (b) right-side lateral view.

Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Panoramic radiographs of the patient after installation of the implant body. An implant body was placed in the right mandibular second molar region (#31). Figure 2. Intraoral view of the patient. A screw-retained provisional restoration was installed in the right mandibular second molar region and adjusted in order to achieve satisfactory oral function and cleansability. (a) Mandibular occlusal view; (b) right-side lateral view.

Close modal

Reproduction of the morphology of the provisional restoration using a novel digital workflow

Initially, an intraoral scanner (TRIOS2, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to digitize three morphological components in the form of 3OXZ data (all components were digitized in 3D) (Figure 3): (1) intraoral morphology data describing the whole mandible with the provisional restoration present; (2) intraoral morphology data describing the whole mandible with the implant scanbody (RC Straumann CARES Mono Scanbody, Straumann) connected to the implant body; and (3) morphology data describing the provisional restoration, linked using an implant replica buried in the plaster model to prevent the movement of the provisional restoration during the scanning process. Additionally, intraoral morphology data describing the whole maxillary dental arch and data describing both the maxillary and mandibular dental arches occluded at the intercuspal position were also digitized. Initially, Dental Designer (3Shape, Denmark) was used to transfer the 3OXZ data to Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine format. Another software (Exchange, Delcam, Autodesk, Birmingham, UK) was then used to convert these intermediate data to the STL format. Finally, a dental computer-aided design (CAD) software (Exocad, Darmstadt, Germany) was used to visualize the data.

Figure 3.

Digital images acquired with an intraoral scanner for transfer of the morphology of the provisional restoration to the final restoration. (a) Intraoral three-dimensional (3D) morphology data of the whole mandible with the provisional restoration (#31) installed. (b) Intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole mandible with an implant scanbody connected to the implant body placed in the region of tooth #31. (c) 3D morphology data of the provisional restoration via an implant replica buried in a plaster model to prevent the movement of the provisional restoration during the scanning process. (d) Intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole maxillary dental arch. (e) Intraoral 3D morphology data of both the maxillary and mandibular dental arches occluded at the intercuspal position.

Figure 3.

Digital images acquired with an intraoral scanner for transfer of the morphology of the provisional restoration to the final restoration. (a) Intraoral three-dimensional (3D) morphology data of the whole mandible with the provisional restoration (#31) installed. (b) Intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole mandible with an implant scanbody connected to the implant body placed in the region of tooth #31. (c) 3D morphology data of the provisional restoration via an implant replica buried in a plaster model to prevent the movement of the provisional restoration during the scanning process. (d) Intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole maxillary dental arch. (e) Intraoral 3D morphology data of both the maxillary and mandibular dental arches occluded at the intercuspal position.

Close modal

These STL data enabled superimposition of the intraoral 3D morphology data describing the whole mandible with the provisional restoration and of the data describing the whole mandible with the implant scanbody; this was performed using a least mean squares method based on the surface morphologies of the remaining teeth and gingival mucosa (Figure 4). Then, data describing the provisional restoration (ie, the 3D surface data) were overlapped onto the existing superimposed 3D image, with reference to the supragingival surface morphology of the provisional restoration. This enabled the provisional restoration and surrounding soft tissue configurations to be reproduced on the implant scanbody in a digital form (Figure 5).

Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Images of the intraoral three-dimensional (3D) morphology data of the whole mandible with the provisional restoration installed and the intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole mandible with the implant scanbody (a) were superimposed on the 3D position (b) using the least mean squares method with reference to the surface morphology of the remaining teeth and gingival mucosa (c). Figure 5. The image of the 3D surface image of the provisional restoration” was superimposed on the image in Figure 4b to reflect the formation of soft tissue around the provisional restorations (a, b). These two images were superimposed using the least mean squares method with reference to the surface morphology of the provisional restoration (c).

Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Images of the intraoral three-dimensional (3D) morphology data of the whole mandible with the provisional restoration installed and the intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole mandible with the implant scanbody (a) were superimposed on the 3D position (b) using the least mean squares method with reference to the surface morphology of the remaining teeth and gingival mucosa (c). Figure 5. The image of the 3D surface image of the provisional restoration” was superimposed on the image in Figure 4b to reflect the formation of soft tissue around the provisional restorations (a, b). These two images were superimposed using the least mean squares method with reference to the surface morphology of the provisional restoration (c).

Close modal

In the next portion of the process, these three-layer image data were returned to the CAD design software (CARES Straumann, Straumann). Figure 6 (a, b) shows the provisional restoration and surrounding soft tissue forms as reflected in the CAD design software. The borderline between the abutment and the final restoration was determined from the provisional restoration configuration based on information regarding the soft tissue configuration surrounding the provisional restoration. The customized titanium abutment and full anatomical zirconium crown were then designed (Figure 6b-d).

Figure 6.

Occlusal (a) and lateral (b) views of the final design of the reproduced form of the superstructure using computer-aided design software. The borderline between the abutment and the final restoration was determined from the form of the provisional restoration by referencing the information of the form of soft tissues around the provisional restoration (c). Subsequently, the customized titanium abutment was designed (d). Fabricated customized titanium abutment and final restoration (e, f).

Figure 6.

Occlusal (a) and lateral (b) views of the final design of the reproduced form of the superstructure using computer-aided design software. The borderline between the abutment and the final restoration was determined from the form of the provisional restoration by referencing the information of the form of soft tissues around the provisional restoration (c). Subsequently, the customized titanium abutment was designed (d). Fabricated customized titanium abutment and final restoration (e, f).

Close modal

Based on the definitive surface morphology, the configuration of the titanium base was digitally withdrawn. Using a 5-axis milling machine (DWX-50, Roland, Shizuoka, Japan), the final restoration was then prepared on a zirconia disk based on these data (Medium Plus, Adamant, Tokyo, Japan). After polishing and baking the zirconia using layering porcelain, an adhesive resin cement (Panavia V5 opaque, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc, Tokyo, Japan) was used for fixation of the crown form, comprising the final restoration and titanium base (Figure 6e, f).

In silico assessment of restorations

Prior to installation, the discrepancies between the restorations were measured using in silico analysis, as previously reported by Kurosaki et al.5 

Figure 7 shows the similarity between the final and provisional restorations. Notably, no chairside adjustment was needed during installation of the final restoration. The respective volumetric discrepancies in the concave and convex components between the final and provisional restorations were 17.2 mm3 and 5.5 mm,3  as shown by in silico analysis; the total volumetric discrepancy was 22.7 mm.3  Moreover, the total discrepancy volume ratio was 4.7%.

Figure 7.

Occlusal (a), lateral (b), and distal (c) views of the provisional (right side) and final (left side) restorations. Volumetric discrepancies were calculated using superimposed images of the scanned data of the final and provisional restorations. The total volumetric discrepancy in the convex/concave portions between the final and provisional restorations was 22.7 mm3 (d).

Figure 7.

Occlusal (a), lateral (b), and distal (c) views of the provisional (right side) and final (left side) restorations. Volumetric discrepancies were calculated using superimposed images of the scanned data of the final and provisional restorations. The total volumetric discrepancy in the convex/concave portions between the final and provisional restorations was 22.7 mm3 (d).

Close modal

An intraoral view after final restoration installation is shown in Figure 8. Notably, no inflammation was observed in the peri-implant tissues. Therefore, no volumetric discrepancy-related clinical issues were noted. Moreover, oral function was satisfactory; thus, the patient reported satisfaction with the treatment outcome.

Figure 8.

Intraoral view of the patient after installation of the final implant restoration in the region of tooth #31. (a), Mandibular occlusal view; (b) right-side lateral view.

Figure 8.

Intraoral view of the patient after installation of the final implant restoration in the region of tooth #31. (a), Mandibular occlusal view; (b) right-side lateral view.

Close modal

The use of an implant scanbody enables accurate 3D recognition of implant platform location; thus, digital implant impressions have increasingly been used with intraoral scanners and implant scanbodies.6  However, the standardized implant scanbody has a prefabricated circular diameter that differs from the provisional restoration configuration that supports the gingival morphology. Additionally, gingival tissue rapidly breaks down after provisional crown removal before scanning. Thus, simple digital scanning of the implant scanbody, which is connected to the implant body, cannot capture the gingival morphology where the provisional restoration is installed. In contrast, our novel digital workflow can reflect the gingival configuration by examining the subgingival contour within the provisional restoration. In addition, the supragingival configuration can also be reflected in the morphology of the final restoration. This enables accurate transfer from the provisional restoration for both functional and esthetic elements of crown morphology, which are assigned to the final restoration. This procedure does not require fabrication of a working cast and X-ray radiation to confirm the position of the impression coping.

In conclusion, clinically acceptable accuracy was achieved using our novel digital workflow for whole morphology reproduction of the provisional restoration, thereby facilitating transfer to the final restoration. Although this technique is only applicable when using an implant system that involves the implant scanbody, it is useful in clinical settings with minimum discomfort to the patient and facilitates achievement of appropriate function and esthetics.

Abbreviations

Abbreviations
3D:

three-dimensional

CAD:

computer-aided design

STL:

standard triangulation language

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

1
Joda
T,
Wittneben
JG,
Brägger
U.
Digital implant impressions with the “Individualized Scanbody Technique” for emergence profile support
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2014
;
25
:
395
397
.
2
Buskin
R,
Salinas
TJ.
Transferring emergence profile created from the provisional to the definitive restoration
.
Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent
.
1998
;
10
:
1171
1179
.
3
Elian
N,
Tabourian
G,
Jalbout
ZN,
et al
Accurate transfer of peri-implant soft tissue emergence profile from the provisional crown to the final prosthesis using an emergence profile cast
.
J Esthet Restor Dent
.
2007
;
19
:
306
314
.
4
Monaco
C,
Evangelisti
E,
Scotti
R,
Mignani
G,
Zucchelli
G.
A fully digital approach to replicate peri-implant soft tissue contours and emergence profile in the esthetic zone
.
Clin Oral Implants Res
.
2016
;
27
:
1511
1514
.
5
Kurosaki
Y,
Mino
T,
Maekawa
K,
Izumi
K,
Kuboki
T.
Digital transfer of the subgingival contour and emergence profile of the provisional restoration to the final bone-anchored fixed restoration
.
J Prosthodont Res
.
2019
;
63
:
125
129
.
6
Rutkūnas
V,
Gečiauskaitė
A,
Jegelevičius
D,
Vaitiekūnas
M.
Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts
.
Eur J Oral Implantol
.
2017
;
10
Suppl 1
:
101
120
.