PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of implant impressions using computer-aided impression-making technology and a conventional approach in a standardized setting in vitro, and to verify the effect of implant angulation (40 to 45 degrees) on the accuracy of digital and conventional impression-making procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different edentulous mandibular reference models (RMs) were manufactured. Two straight (RM1); four straight (RM2); two straight and two tilted (RM3); and six straight (RM4) dental implants were placed, simulating four different clinical scenarios. The computer-aided impressions (n = 5 for each RM) were made using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (True Definition, 3M ESPE). Polyether (n = 5 for each RM) and vinyl polysiloxane (n = 5 for each RM) impression materials were utilized for the conventional approach. The collected data were analyzed in terms of trueness. The statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The overall differences of interimplant distance, identified in mean values, were statistically significant among the different impression-making groups in RM1, RM3, and RM4. The data analyses of overall interimplant angle deviations yielded statistically significant differences in all four RMs. However, the deviations obtained with both impression-making approaches did not exceed an interimplant distance threshold of 100 µm, and an interimplant angle of 0.5 degrees, which seems to be clinically acceptable. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the computer-aided and conventional impression-making approaches for straight and tilted dental implants was comparable, and might be clinically considered for full-arch, multiple-implant restorations. However, further clinical studies are required to verify the feasibility of different IOSs (with and without scanning powder application), different implant systems, and multiple implant configurations.
PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of implant impressions using computer-aided impression-making technology and a conventional approach in a standardized setting in vitro, and to verify the effect of implant angulation (40 to 45 degrees) on the accuracy of digital and conventional impression-making procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four different edentulous mandibular reference models (RMs) were manufactured. Two straight (RM1); four straight (RM2); two straight and two tilted (RM3); and six straight (RM4) dental implants were placed, simulating four different clinical scenarios. The computer-aided impressions (n = 5 for each RM) were made using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (True Definition, 3M ESPE). Polyether (n = 5 for each RM) and vinyl polysiloxane (n = 5 for each RM) impression materials were utilized for the conventional approach. The collected data were analyzed in terms of trueness. The statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: The overall differences of interimplant distance, identified in mean values, were statistically significant among the different impression-making groups in RM1, RM3, and RM4. The data analyses of overall interimplant angle deviations yielded statistically significant differences in all four RMs. However, the deviations obtained with both impression-making approaches did not exceed an interimplant distance threshold of 100 µm, and an interimplant angle of 0.5 degrees, which seems to be clinically acceptable. CONCLUSION: Within the limits of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the computer-aided and conventional impression-making approaches for straight and tilted dental implants was comparable, and might be clinically considered for full-arch, multiple-implant restorations. However, further clinical studies are required to verify the feasibility of different IOSs (with and without scanning powder application), different implant systems, and multiple implant configurations.
Authors: Paolo Cappare; Gianpaolo Sannino; Margherita Minoli; Pietro Montemezzi; Francesco Ferrini Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-03-07 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