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

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.

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.

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.

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.