Literature DB >> 21647591

Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study.

Michael Stimmelmayr1, Jan-Frederik Güth, Kurt Erdelt, Daniel Edelhoff, Florian Beuer.   

Abstract

Dental restorations are increasingly manufactured by CAD/CAM systems. Currently, there are two alternatives for digitizing dental implants: direct intra-oral data capturing or indirect from a master cast, both with transfer caps (scanbodies). The aim of this study was the evaluation of the fit of the scanbodies and their ability of reposition. At the site of the first molars and canines, implants were placed bilaterally in a polymer lower arch model (original model), and an impression was taken for fabricating a stone cast (stone model). Ten white-light scans were obtained from the original and the stone model with the scanbodies in place. The scanbodies were retrieved after each scan and re-attached to the same implant or lab analogue. The first scan of the series served as control in both groups. The subsequent nine scans and control were superimposed using inspection software to identify the discrepancies of the four scanbodies in both experimental groups. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancy of the scanbodies was 39 μm (±58 μm) on the original implants versus 11 μm (±17 μm) on the lab analogues. The difference in scanbody discrepancy between original implants and lab analogues was statistically significant (p < 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test). Scanbody discrepancy was higher on original implants than on lab analogues. Fit and reproducibility of the scanbodies on original implants should be improved to achieve higher accuracy of implant-supported CAD/CAM fabricated restorations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21647591     DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Investig        ISSN: 1432-6981            Impact factor:   3.573


  28 in total

Review 1.  Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature.

Authors:  A G Wee; S A Aquilino; R L Schneider
Journal:  Int J Prosthodont       Date:  1999 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.681

2.  Comparison of the three-dimensional correctness of impression techniques: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Ralph Gunnar Luthardt; Michael H Walter; Sebastian Quaas; Rainer Koch; Heike Rudolph
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.677

3.  Margin isolation for optical impressions and adhesion.

Authors:  R Masek
Journal:  Int J Comput Dent       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 1.883

4.  An analysis and management of fractured implants: a clinical report.

Authors:  T J Balshi
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

5.  Theoretical considerations: implant positional index design.

Authors:  W Semper; S Kraft; T Krüger; K Nelson
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 6.116

6.  Tolerance measurements of various implant components.

Authors:  T Ma; J I Nicholls; J E Rubenstein
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  1997 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.804

7.  Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study.

Authors:  S E Eckert; S J Meraw; E Cal; R K Ow
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2000 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

8.  Microbial findings at failing implants.

Authors:  A Leonhardt; S Renvert; G Dahlén
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.977

9.  Experimental breakdown of peri-implant and periodontal tissues. A study in the beagle dog.

Authors:  J Lindhe; T Berglundh; I Ericsson; B Liljenberg; C Marinello
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 10.  The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review.

Authors:  Heeje Lee; Joseph S So; J L Hochstedler; Carlo Ercoli
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 3.426

View more
  13 in total

1.  Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach.

Authors:  Michael Stimmelmayr; Kurt Erdelt; Jan-Frederik Güth; Arndt Happe; Florian Beuer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-10-19       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Computer-aided evaluation of preparations for CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns.

Authors:  Jan-Frederik Güth; Jan Wallbach; Michael Stimmelmayr; Wolfgang Gernet; Florian Beuer; Daniel Edelhoff
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-08-07       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure.

Authors:  Maria Menini; Paolo Setti; Francesco Pera; Paolo Pera; Paolo Pesce
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2017-09-30       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants.

Authors:  Leonardo Ciocca; Roberto Meneghello; Carlo Monaco; Gianpaolo Savio; Lorenzo Scheda; Maria Rosaria Gatto; Paolo Baldissara
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 2.924

5.  Clinical study evaluating the discrepancy of two different impression techniques of four implants in an edentulous jaw.

Authors:  Michael Stimmelmayr; Jan-Frederik Güth; Kurt Erdelt; Arndt Happe; Markus Schlee; Florian Beuer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2012-12-06       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.

Authors:  Sang J Lee; Rebecca A Betensky; Grace E Gianneschi; German O Gallucci
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 5.977

7.  Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition.

Authors:  Ye-Kyu Rhee; Yoon-Hyuk Huh; Lee-Ra Cho; Chan-Jin Park
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2015-12-30       Impact factor: 1.904

8.  Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions-An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Paulo Ribeiro; Mariano Herrero-Climent; Carmen Díaz-Castro; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Roberto Padrós; Javier Gil Mur; Carlos Falcão
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-07-27       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 9.  The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review.

Authors:  George Michelinakis; Dimitrios Apostolakis; Phophi Kamposiora; George Papavasiliou; Mutlu Özcan
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 2.757

10.  Accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions for fixed partial dentures: A comparative clinical study.

Authors:  Agne Gedrimiene; Rimas Adaskevicius; Vygandas Rutkunas
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2019-10-30       Impact factor: 1.904

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.