Literature DB >> 34073329

Accuracy of Proximal and Occlusal Contacts of Single Implant Crowns Fabricated Using Different Digital Scan Methods: An In Vitro Study.

Xi Ren1,2, Keunbada Son3,4, Kyu-Bok Lee1,3.   

Abstract

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of the proximal and occlusal contacts of single implant crowns fabricated with four data capture methods. The resin models were mounted on an articulator, digitized using a laboratory scanner, and saved as a standard tessellation language (STL) file to serve as the master reference model (MRM). Two different intraoral scan body (ISB) systems were evaluated: polyetheretherketone (PEEK) short scan body (SSB) and PEEK long scan body (LSB) (n = 12). The digital impressions (SSB and LSB) were acquired using an intraoral scanner with ISB. Two different conventional techniques were also evaluated: PEEK short scan body with coping plastic cap (CPC) and pick-up coping (PUC) (n = 12). The implant impressions (CPC and PUC) were recorded using a conventional impression technique. The crown and abutment were fabricated with a milling machine and then placed on the resin model and scanned using a laboratory scanner. The scanned files were saved as STL files to serve as test datasets. The MRM and test datasets were superimposed, and the mesial, distal, and occlusal distances were calculated using a 3D inspection software and statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test (α = 0.05). The direct data capture group had more accurate contact points on the three surfaces, with mesial contact of 64.7 (12.8) µm followed by distal contact of 65.4 (15) µm and occlusal contact of 147 (35.8) µm in the SSB group, and mesial contact of 84.9 (22.6) µm followed by distal contact of 69.5 (19.2) µm and occlusal contact of 115.9 (27.7) µm in the LSB group (p < 0.001). The direct data capture groups are closer to the ideal proximal and occlusal contacts for single implant crowns than the indirect data capture groups. There was no difference in the accuracy between the two types of scan body (SSB and LSB).

Entities:  

Keywords:  digital scan; intraoral scanner; scan body; single crown implant

Year:  2021        PMID: 34073329     DOI: 10.3390/ma14112843

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Materials (Basel)        ISSN: 1996-1944            Impact factor:   3.623


  26 in total

1.  Improving implant framework passive fit and accuracy through the use of verification stents and casts.

Authors:  A Schneider; G M Kurtzman; L H Silverstein
Journal:  J Dent Technol       Date:  2001-06

2.  Occlusal refinement of mounted casts before crown fabrication to decrease clinical time required to adjust occlusion.

Authors:  H P Boyarsky; L G Loos; C Leknius
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.426

3.  The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement.

Authors:  Gordon J Christensen
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 3.634

4.  Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.

Authors:  Ryan M Mizumoto; Burak Yilmaz; Edwin A McGlumphy; Jeremy Seidt; William M Johnston
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2019-04-27       Impact factor: 3.426

5.  Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD/CAM systems.

Authors:  Tamer A Hamza; Hesham A Ezzat; Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil El-Hossary; Hesham Abd El Megid Katamish; Tamer E Shokry; Stephen F Rosenstiel
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 3.426

6.  Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and a repeat pour of models.

Authors:  G H Johnson; R G Craig
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  1985-04       Impact factor: 3.426

7.  Clinical complications with implants and implant prostheses.

Authors:  Charles J Goodacre; Guillermo Bernal; Kitichai Rungcharassaeng; Joseph Y K Kan
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 3.426

8.  Oral piercing and oral diseases: a short time retrospective study.

Authors:  Francesco Inchingolo; Marco Tatullo; Fabio M Abenavoli; Massimo Marrelli; Alessio D Inchingolo; Antonio Palladino; Angelo M Inchingolo; Gianna Dipalma
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 3.738

9.  Influence of marginal bone resorption on two mini implant-retained mandibular overdenture: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Ying Guo; Kentaro Kono; Yasunori Suzuki; Chikahiro Ohkubo; Jian-Yu Zeng; Jing Zhang
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2021-02-23       Impact factor: 1.904

10.  Digital evaluation of axial displacement by implant-abutment connection type: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Sung-Jun Kim; KeunBaDa Son; Kyu-Bok Lee
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 1.904

View more
  2 in total

1.  Correlation between the data quality of digital impressions and surface topography of prepared teeth.

Authors:  Ilser Turkyilmaz; Sarah Yun; Gregory Neil Wilkins; Merve Benli
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2021-07-03       Impact factor: 2.080

2.  Clinical Outcome of Fully Digital Workflow for Single-Implant-Supported Crowns: A Retrospective Clinical Study.

Authors:  Francesco Gianfreda; Paolo Pesce; Erich Marcano; Valeria Pistilli; Patrizio Bollero; Luigi Canullo
Journal:  Dent J (Basel)       Date:  2022-07-27
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.