Maria Menini1, Paolo Setti2,3, Francesco Pera1, Paolo Pera1, Paolo Pesce1. 1. Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy. 2. Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics, University of Genova, Genoa, Italy. paolo.setti@medicina.unige.it. 3. Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences (DISC), Pad. 4 Ospedale S. Martino, Largo Rosanna Benzi 10, 16132, Genoa, Italy. paolo.setti@medicina.unige.it.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different impression techniques on multiple implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A master cast simulating a jaw with four implants was used. Eight impression techniques were tested: open tray-polyether#1, open tray plus splint of impression copings with acrylic resin-polyether#1, closed tray-polyether#1, open tray-polyether#2, open tray-splint-polyether#2, closed tray-polyether#2, open tray-impression plaster, and digital impression (DI). Five impressions of the master cast were taken with each traditional impression (TI) technique, pouring 35 sample casts. Three different clinicians took 5 DI each (n = 15). A three-dimensional coordinate measurement machine (CMM) was used to measure implant angulation and inter-implant distances on TI casts. TI data and DI Standard Tessellation Language datasets were compared with the master cast. The best and the worst impressions made with TI and DI were selected to fabricate four milled titanium frameworks. Passive fit was evaluated through Sheffield test, screwing each framework on the master cast. Gaps between framework-implant analogs were measured through a stereomicroscope (×40 magnification). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found comparing the different impression techniques by CMM (p < 0.01). DI performed the best, while TI techniques revealed a greater variability in the results. Sheffield test revealed a mean gap of 0.022 ± 0.023 mm (the best TI), 0.063 ± 0.059 mm (the worst TI), 0.015 ± 0.011 mm (the best DI), and 0.019 ± 0.015 mm (the worst DI). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this in vitro study, the digital impression showed better accuracy compared to conventional impressioning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The digital impression might offer a viable alternative to traditional impressions for fabrication of full-arch implant-supported prostheses with satisfactory passive fit.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different impression techniques on multiple implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A master cast simulating a jaw with four implants was used. Eight impression techniques were tested: open tray-polyether#1, open tray plus splint of impression copings with acrylic resin-polyether#1, closed tray-polyether#1, open tray-polyether#2, open tray-splint-polyether#2, closed tray-polyether#2, open tray-impression plaster, and digital impression (DI). Five impressions of the master cast were taken with each traditional impression (TI) technique, pouring 35 sample casts. Three different clinicians took 5 DI each (n = 15). A three-dimensional coordinate measurement machine (CMM) was used to measure implant angulation and inter-implant distances on TI casts. TI data and DI Standard Tessellation Language datasets were compared with the master cast. The best and the worst impressions made with TI and DI were selected to fabricate four milled titanium frameworks. Passive fit was evaluated through Sheffield test, screwing each framework on the master cast. Gaps between framework-implant analogs were measured through a stereomicroscope (×40 magnification). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found comparing the different impression techniques by CMM (p < 0.01). DI performed the best, while TI techniques revealed a greater variability in the results. Sheffield test revealed a mean gap of 0.022 ± 0.023 mm (the best TI), 0.063 ± 0.059 mm (the worst TI), 0.015 ± 0.011 mm (the best DI), and 0.019 ± 0.015 mm (the worst DI). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this in vitro study, the digital impression showed better accuracy compared to conventional impressioning. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The digital impression might offer a viable alternative to traditional impressions for fabrication of full-arch implant-supported prostheses with satisfactory passive fit.
Keywords:
Dental implants; Digital impression; Full-arch; Impression accuracy; Intraoral digitizer; Passive fit
Authors: Tabea V Flügge; Stefan Schlager; Katja Nelson; Susanne Nahles; Marc C Metzger Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Maria Menini; Elena Dellepiane; Paolo Pera; Marco Bevilacqua; Paolo Pesce; Francesco Pera; Tiziano Tealdo Journal: J Prosthodont Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 2.752
Authors: Simone Marques; Paulo Ribeiro; Carlos Falcão; Bernardo Ferreira Lemos; Blanca Ríos-Carrasco; José Vicente Ríos-Santos; Mariano Herrero-Climent Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-24 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: María Isabel Albanchez-González; Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann; Jesús Peláez-Rico; Carlos López-Suárez; Verónica Rodríguez-Alonso; María Jesús Suárez-García Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Maria Menini; Francesco Bagnasco; Ivan Calimodio; Nicolò Di Tullio; Francesca Delucchi; Domenico Baldi; Francesco Pera Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Paolo Pesce; Francesco Bagnasco; Nicolò Pancini; Marco Colombo; Luigi Canullo; Francesco Pera; Eriberto Bressan; Marco Annunziata; Maria Menini Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 4.241