Andreas Ender1, Thomas Attin2, Albert Mehl3. 1. Research Assistant, Division for Computerized Restorative Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. Electronic address: andreas.ender@zzm.uzh.ch. 2. Department Head, Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Centre of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Department Head, Division for Computerized Restorative Dentistry, Centre of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Digital impression systems have undergone significant development in recent years, but few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo, particularly compared with conventional impression techniques. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate the precision of conventional and digital methods for complete-arch impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Complete-arch impressions were obtained using 5 conventional (polyether, POE; vinylsiloxanether, VSE; direct scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES; digitized scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES-D; and irreversible hydrocolloid, ALG) and 7 digital (CEREC Bluecam, CER; CEREC Omnicam, OC; Cadent iTero, ITE; Lava COS, LAV; Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; 3Shape Trios, TRI; and 3Shape Trios Color, TRC) techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (N=15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value. RESULTS: The precision ranged from 12.3 μm (VSE) to 167.2 μm (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Digital impression systems have undergone significant development in recent years, but few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo, particularly compared with conventional impression techniques. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate the precision of conventional and digital methods for complete-arch impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Complete-arch impressions were obtained using 5 conventional (polyether, POE; vinylsiloxanether, VSE; direct scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES; digitized scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES-D; and irreversible hydrocolloid, ALG) and 7 digital (CEREC Bluecam, CER; CEREC Omnicam, OC; Cadent iTero, ITE; Lava COS, LAV; Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; 3Shape Trios, TRI; and 3Shape Trios Color, TRC) techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (N=15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value. RESULTS: The precision ranged from 12.3 μm (VSE) to 167.2 μm (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials.
Authors: Moritz Zimmermann; Christina Koller; Moritz Rumetsch; Andreas Ender; Albert Mehl Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2017-07-21 Impact factor: 1.938