Literature DB >> 34327601

Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation.

Jaafar Abduo1, Joseph E A Palamara2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Accurate implant impression is an essential requirement for the fabrication of implant prosthesis. This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of digital impressions by intraoral scanner (IOS) systems in comparison to conventional impressions for recording the position of 2 parallel implants and 2 divergent implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In vitro 3-unit prosthesis master models with 2 tissue level implants were fabricated; one model had parallel implants, and the other model had one 15° tilted implant. The conventional open-tray impressions were obtained with non-splinted (NSP) and splinted (SP) impression copings. Trios 4 (TS), Medit i500 (MT), and True Definition (TD) were used to make digital impressions with scan bodies. A total of 10 impressions were obtained with every technique. The virtual test images of the conventional and digital impressions were converted to 2 virtual implant images. For each group, trueness, precision, inter-implant distance deviation, and angle deviation were measured.
RESULTS: There was a general tendency for digital impressions to provide a more accurate outcome for trueness, precision, and angle deviation. The 2 conventional impressions showed similar accuracy, except for the angle deviation, where the NSP was significantly inferior than SP (p < 0.01) for the divergent implants model. The TD was generally the least accurate among all the IOS systems, especially for the inter-implant distance deviation (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the laboratory set-up of the present study and the limited clinical resemblance, the digital impressions appeared to have sufficient accuracy for 2 implants and were least affected by the presence of angle between implants. The most inferior outcome was observed for the NSP technique.
© 2021. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Implant impression; Precision; Scanning; Splinted; Trueness

Year:  2021        PMID: 34327601     DOI: 10.1186/s40729-021-00355-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Implant Dent        ISSN: 2198-4034


  23 in total

1.  Evaluation of splinting implant impression techniques: two dimensional analyses.

Authors:  N A Tarib; T W Seong; K M Chuen; M S Kun; M Ahmad; K H Kamarudin
Journal:  Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent       Date:  2012-03

2.  Displacement of implant components from impressions to definitive casts.

Authors:  Sunjai Kim; Jack I Nicholls; Chong-Hyun Han; Keun-Woo Lee
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2006 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

3.  Prosthetic transfer impression accuracy evaluation for osseointegrated implants.

Authors:  Wirley Gonçalves Assunção; Lucas Fernando Tabata; Alessandra Cardoso; Eduardo Passos Rocha; Erica Alves Gomes
Journal:  Implant Dent       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.454

4.  Obtaining reliable intraoral digital scans for an implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis: A dental technique.

Authors:  Mikel Iturrate; Rikardo Minguez; Guillermo Pradies; Eneko Solaberrieta
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2018-08-07       Impact factor: 3.426

5.  The use of a scannable impression coping and digital impression technique to fabricate a customized anatomic abutment and zirconia restoration in the esthetic zone.

Authors:  Wei-Shao Lin; Bryan T Harris; Dean Morton
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 3.426

6.  Use of implant-supported interim restorations to transfer periimplant soft tissue profiles to a milled polyurethane definitive cast.

Authors:  Wei-Shao Lin; Bryan T Harris; Dean Morton
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.426

Review 7.  Implications of implant framework misfit: a systematic review of biomechanical sequelae.

Authors:  Jaafar Abduo; Roy B Judge
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2014 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 8.  Multi-unit implant impression accuracy: A review of the literature.

Authors:  Mirza Rustum Baig
Journal:  Quintessence Int       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 1.677

Review 9.  Mechanical complications of dental implants.

Authors:  M S Schwarz
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 10.  Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Panos Papaspyridakos; Chun-Jung Chen; German O Gallucci; Asterios Doukoudakis; Hans-Peter Weber; Vasilios Chronopoulos
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2014 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.804

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.

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

2.  Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials.

Authors:  Jae-Hyun Lee; Jae-Hwi Bae; Su Young Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 4.379

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.