Purpose: To validate an innovative 3D volumetric method of evaluating tissue changes proposed by Lee et al in 2020 by comparing the results of this method—in which the scanned peri-implant surfaces were transformed, visualized, and analyzed as 3D objects—to the results reported by an existing method based on calculation of the mean distance between measured surfaces. The null hypothesis was that there was no statistically significant difference between the two methods. Additionally, the present study evaluated peri-implant tissue changes 5 years after single implant placement in the esthetic zone. Materials and Methods: Both methods were applied to 11 oral implant site casts (6 maxillary central incisor sites, 5 maxillary lateral incisor sites) taken from 11 patients at crown placement and at follow-up examinations 5 years later. The methods are based on digital workflows in which the reference and 5-year casts are scanned and the resulting STL files are superimposed and analyzed for three regions of interest (mesial papilla, central area, and distal papilla). The volumetric changes reported by the Lee et al method and the mean distance method were calculated and compared using the Spearman rank correlation coefficient (P < .01) and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (P < .05). Results: The correlation between the two sets of measurements was very high (Spearman rank correlation coefficient = 0.885). The new volumetric method indicated a mean volume loss of 2.82 mm3 (SD: 5.06), while the method based on the measurement of mean distance showed a mean volume loss of 2.92 mm3 (SD: 4.43; Wilcoxon signed-rank test result: P = .77). No statistically significant difference was found. The two methods gave equivalent results, and the null hypothesis was accepted. Conclusions: The new volumetric method was validated and can be considered a trustworthy tool.
Schlagwörter: volumetric analysis, digital workflow, peri-implant tissue, esthetic zone
