Konstantinos Chochlidakis1, Panos Papaspyridakos2,3, Alexandra Tsigarida4, Davide Romeo5,6, Yo-Wei Chen7, Zuhair Natto8,9, Carlo Ercoli10. 1. Associate Professor, Program Director, Department of Prosthodontics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, NY. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Tufts School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, NY. 4. Associate Professor, Program Director, Department of Periodontics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, NY. 5. Resident, Department of Prosthodontics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, NY. 6. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Advanced Oral Surgery Unit, Vita Salute University, San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy. 7. Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Tufts School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 8. Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Public Health, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 9. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Periodontology, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Professor, Prosthodontics and Periodontics, Chair, Department of Prosthodontics, Eastman Institute for Oral Health, University of Rochester, NY.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A prospective clinical study to compare for the first time the accuracy of digital and conventional maxillary implant impressions for completely edentulous patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients received maxillary implant supported fixed complete dentures. After the verification of the conventional final casts, the casts were scanned with a desktop (extraoral) scanner. Intraoral full-arch digital scans were also obtained with scan bodies and STL files from both extraoral and intraoral scans were superimposed and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary outcome measure was the assessment of accuracy between scans of the verified conventional casts and digital full-arch impressions. The secondary outcome was the effect of the implant number on the 3D accuracy of impressions with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The 3D deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full-arch digital scans and digitized final stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 162 ±77 μm. In the 4-implant group, 5-implant group, and 6-implant group the 3D deviations were found to be 139 ±56 μm, 146 ±90 μm, and 185 ±81 μm, respectively. There was a positive correlation between increased implant number and 3D-deviations, but there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D accuracy of full-arch digital implant scans lies within previously reported clinically acceptable threshold. Full-arch digital scans and a complete digital workflow in the fabrication of maxillary fixed complete dentures may be clinically feasible. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
PURPOSE: A prospective clinical study to compare for the first time the accuracy of digital and conventional maxillary implant impressions for completely edentulouspatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients received maxillary implant supported fixed complete dentures. After the verification of the conventional final casts, the casts were scanned with a desktop (extraoral) scanner. Intraoral full-arch digital scans were also obtained with scan bodies and STL files from both extraoral and intraoral scans were superimposed and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary outcome measure was the assessment of accuracy between scans of the verified conventional casts and digital full-arch impressions. The secondary outcome was the effect of the implant number on the 3D accuracy of impressions with Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The 3D deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full-arch digital scans and digitized final stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 162 ±77 μm. In the 4-implant group, 5-implant group, and 6-implant group the 3D deviations were found to be 139 ±56 μm, 146 ±90 μm, and 185 ±81 μm, respectively. There was a positive correlation between increased implant number and 3D-deviations, but there was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.191). CONCLUSIONS: The 3D accuracy of full-arch digital implant scans lies within previously reported clinically acceptable threshold. Full-arch digital scans and a complete digital workflow in the fabrication of maxillary fixed complete dentures may be clinically feasible. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
accuracy; digital implant scan; fixed complete denture; full-arch
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: Jaime Orejas-Perez; Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez; Ignacio Ortiz-Collado; Israel J Thuissard; Andrea Santamaria-Laorden Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-03 Impact factor: 3.390