Literature DB >> 28039903

Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.

Sarah Amin1, Hans Peter Weber1, Matthew Finkelman2, Khaled El Rafie1, Yukio Kudara1, Panos Papaspyridakos1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To test whether or not digital full-arch implant impressions with two different intra-oral scanners (CEREC Omnicam and True Definition) have the same accuracy as conventional ones. The hypothesis was that the splinted open-tray impressions would be more accurate than digital full-arch impressions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A stone master cast representing an edentulous mandible using five internal connection implant analogs (Straumann Bone Level RC, Basel, Switzerland) was fabricated. The three median implants were parallel to each other, the far left implant had 10°, and the far right had 15° distal angulation. A splinted open-tray technique was used for the conventional polyether impressions (n = 10) for Group 1. Digital impressions (n = 10) were taken with two intra-oral optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam and 3M True Definition) after connecting polymer scan bodies to the master cast for groups 2 and 3. Master cast and conventional impression test casts were digitized with a high-resolution reference scanner (Activity 880 scanner; Smart Optics, Bochum, Germany) to obtain digital files. Standard tessellation language (STL) datasets from the three test groups of digital and conventional impressions were superimposed with the STL dataset from the master cast to assess the 3D deviations. Deviations were recorded as root-mean-square error. To compare the master cast with conventional and digital impressions at the implant level, Welch's F-test was used together with Games-Howell post hoc test.
RESULTS: Group I had a mean value of 167.93 μm (SD 50.37); Group II (Omnicam) had a mean value of 46.41 μm (SD 7.34); Group III (True Definition) had a mean value of 19.32 μm (SD 2.77). Welch's F-test was used together with the Games-Howell test for post hoc comparisons. Welch's F-test showed a significant difference between the groups (P < 0.001). The Games-Howell test showed statistically significant 3D deviations for all three groups (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Full-arch digital implant impressions using True Definition scanner and Omnicam were significantly more accurate than the conventional impressions with the splinted open-tray technique. Additionally, the digital impressions with the True Definition scanner had significantly less 3D deviations when compared with the Omnicam.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dental implants; digital dentistry; digital implant impressions; edentulous; full-arch implant impressions

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28039903     DOI: 10.1111/clr.12994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res        ISSN: 0905-7161            Impact factor:   5.977


  26 in total

1.  Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison.

Authors:  Christine Keul; Jan-Frederik Güth
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2019-05-27       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 2.  Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: A systematic literature review.

Authors:  Ignacio García-Gil; Jorge Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann; Jaime Jiménez-García; Jesus Peláez-Rico; María-Jesús Suárez-García
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2020-08-01

3.  Mandibular Advancement Splint Therapy.

Authors:  Anna M Mohammadieh; Kate Sutherland; Andrew S L Chan; Peter A Cistulli
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2022       Impact factor: 3.650

4.  In Vitro Comparison of Three Intraoral Scanners for Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses.

Authors:  Vitória Costa; António Sérgio Silva; Rosana Costa; Pedro Barreiros; Joana Mendes; José Manuel Mendes
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-15

5.  Effect of Scanner Type and Scan Body Location on the Accuracy of Mandibular Complete-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study.

Authors:  Gülce Çakmak; Hakan Yilmaz; Alejandro Treviño Santos; Ali Murat Kökat; Burak Yilmaz
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2021-09-21       Impact factor: 3.485

6.  Effect of full arch two scanning techniques on the accuracy of overdenture conventional and CAD/CAM Co-Cr bars.

Authors:  Ali Alenezi; Mohammed Yehya; Mohamed Alkhodary
Journal:  Saudi Dent J       Date:  2022-08-28

Review 7.  Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Francesco Mangano; Andrea Gandolfi; Giuseppe Luongo; Silvia Logozzo
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.757

8.  Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type.

Authors:  Marzieh Alikhasi; Hakime Siadat; Alireza Nasirpour; Mahya Hasanzade
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2018-06-04

Review 9.  Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review.

Authors:  Minoru Sanda; Keita Miyoshi; Kazuyoshi Baba
Journal:  Int J Implant Dent       Date:  2021-07-27

10.  Bias Evaluation of the Accuracy of Two Extraoral Scanners and an Intraoral Scanner Based on ADA Standards.

Authors:  Naiyu Cui; Jiayin Wang; Xingyu Hou; Shixun Sun; Qixuan Huang; Ho-Kyung Lim; HongXin Cai; Qi Jia; Eui-Seok Lee; Heng Bo Jiang
Journal:  Scanning       Date:  2021-06-10       Impact factor: 1.932

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.