Firas-Abdulameer Farhan1, Ali-Jameel-Abdul Sahib2, Abdalbseet-Ahmad Fatalla3. 1. PhD. Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontic, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Muadham campus of the University of Baghdad, 1417, Baghdad, Iraq. 2. MSc. Assistant professor, Department of Prosthodontic, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Muadham campus of the University of Baghdad, 1417, Baghdad, Iraq. 3. PhD. Professor, Department of Prosthodontic, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Bab Al-Muadham campus of the University of Baghdad, 1417, Baghdad, Iraq.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several impression techniques, especially in combination with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM), are used in increasing the accuracy of dental implantology and decreasing patient discomfort. The study was designed to examine the accuracy of the digital impression (DI) of multiple implants with an intraoral scanner (IOS) and compared with that of a conventional impression (CI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four dental implants were placed in teeth area #33, #36, #43 and 46# of the mandibular full-arch model. The implanted model was replicated by IOS and CI after fitting of scannable abutments over the implant screws. Then, a small hole was made on the scan region (as a reference point). Two types of CI techniques were used; dual-phase (DP) and monophase (MP). Stone casts were produced through a conventional close tray impression technique using die stone. The casts were scanned with a laboratory scanner. DI was attained by scanning the implanted model with the IOS. The control sample was accomplished by scanning the implanted model directly with a laboratory scanner. Dimensional accuracy was calculated by measuring the distances between the reference points of four measuring parameters as follows; A-B, B-C, C-D, and A-D using CAD software. RESULTS: The mean values and standard deviation between the four parameters of different impression techniques (CI and DI) and the control group showed convergent value. One-way ANOVA test showed all CI techniques, except IOS, showed a significant differences from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CI, the IOS was more accurate because no differences were observed between its measurements and those of the control model. CI is simple and reduces patient discomfort when used in fabricating multiple implants and allowing communication with dental technicians. Key words:Dimension accuracy, conventional impressions, digital impressions, multiple implants. Copyright:
BACKGROUND: Several impression techniques, especially in combination with computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM), are used in increasing the accuracy of dental implantology and decreasing patient discomfort. The study was designed to examine the accuracy of the digital impression (DI) of multiple implants with an intraoral scanner (IOS) and compared with that of a conventional impression (CI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four dental implants were placed in teeth area #33, #36, #43 and 46# of the mandibular full-arch model. The implanted model was replicated by IOS and CI after fitting of scannable abutments over the implant screws. Then, a small hole was made on the scan region (as a reference point). Two types of CI techniques were used; dual-phase (DP) and monophase (MP). Stone casts were produced through a conventional close tray impression technique using die stone. The casts were scanned with a laboratory scanner. DI was attained by scanning the implanted model with the IOS. The control sample was accomplished by scanning the implanted model directly with a laboratory scanner. Dimensional accuracy was calculated by measuring the distances between the reference points of four measuring parameters as follows; A-B, B-C, C-D, and A-D using CAD software. RESULTS: The mean values and standard deviation between the four parameters of different impression techniques (CI and DI) and the control group showed convergent value. One-way ANOVA test showed all CI techniques, except IOS, showed a significant differences from the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CI, the IOS was more accurate because no differences were observed between its measurements and those of the control model. CI is simple and reduces patient discomfort when used in fabricating multiple implants and allowing communication with dental technicians. Key words:Dimension accuracy, conventional impressions, digital impressions, multiple implants. Copyright:
Authors: Catherine B Martin; Elinor V Chalmers; Elsinore V Chalmers; Grant T McIntyre; Heather Cochrane; Peter A Mossey Journal: J Orthod Date: 2015-05-04