DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Implant prosthesis using intraoral scanner: Case Report

구강스캐너를 이용한 임플란트 보철물 제작 증례

  • Kang, Byeong-Gil (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Kim, Hee-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University) ;
  • Chung, Chae-Heon (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University)
  • 강병길 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김희중 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 정재헌 (조선대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2015.06.11
  • Accepted : 2015.07.07
  • Published : 2015.07.31

Abstract

Accuracy is the most important thing in implant prosthesis, for this reason it is essential procedure to check the accuracy of impression taking. However, impression material has its own error and the error occurs in model-making procedure. As an alternative way to this, using intraoral scanner can be suggested and many studies were issued reporting that there's no statistically significant difference in accuracy between intraoral scanner and conventional impression. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to report the process of making of implant prosthesis using intraoral scanner, which is more convenient, fast, accurate compared with conventional method.

임플란트 보철물의 경우 무엇보다도 보철물의 정확성이 중요하며 이러한 이유로 인해 인상채득의 정확성을 확인하는 과정이 필수적이다. 그러나 인상재 자체의 오차가 존재하며 모형을 제작하는 과정에서도 오차가 발생하게 된다. 이에 대한 대안으로 구강스캐너를 통한 보철물 제작을 생각해 볼 수 있으며, 최근 구강스캐너와 기존의 인상법 간의 정확성에 있어 통계적으로 유의할만할 차이가 없다는 많은 문헌들이 발표되었다. 따라서 intraoral scanner를 이용하여 기존에 방법에 비해 보다 편하고, 빠르며, 정확한 임플란트 보철물을 제작하는 일련의 과정을 보고하고자 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Del'Acqua MA, Arioli-Filho JN, Compagnoni MA, Mollo Fde A Jr. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:226-36.
  2. Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:323-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70136-3
  3. Del'Acqua MA, Cha′vez AM, Compagnoni MA, Molo Fde A Jr. Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:715-21.
  4. Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:310-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.09.027
  5. Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1201-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0
  6. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015 Feb 13.
  7. Kim JH, Kim KB, Kim WC, Kim JH, Kim HY. Accuracy and precision of polyurethane dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an intraoral scanning technique. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:69-76. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.69