구강회복응용과학지 (Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science)

  • 제36권1호
  • /
  • Pages.29-40
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2384-4353(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2384-4272(eISSN)
대한턱관절교합학회 (Korean Academy of Stomatognathic Function and Occlusion)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

임플란트 디지털 인상용 코핑의 정확성 비교

Comparison of the accuracy of implant digital impression coping

  • 안교진 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이준석 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Ahn, Gyo-Zin (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Joon-Seok (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 투고 : 2020.02.21
  • 심사 : 2020.03.07
  • 발행 : 2020.03.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

목적: Encoded healing abutment와 scan body를 이용한 디지털 인상과 pick-up 인상용 코핑을 이용한 인상 채득법의 정확도를 다른 임플란트 식립 각도에서 비교 연구하고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 3D 프린터를 이용해 주모형을 제작하고 0°, 10° 및 20°의 근심경사로 3개의 임플란트를 위치 시켰다. 각각의 임플란트에 지대주를 체결하고 주모형을 스캔하여 참조 모델을 만들었다. P군 모델은 pick-up 인상용 코핑을 사용하여 15개의 석고 모형을 만들고 지대주를 장착 후 스캔하여 제작하였다. E군과 S군의 모델은 각각 encoded healing abutment와 scan body를 주모형에 체결하고 구내 스캐너를 이용해 15회씩 인상채득을 하여 제작하였다. 각각의 실험군 STL 파일은 best fit alignment를 이용해 참조 모델과 중첩하였고 root mean square (RMS) 값을 분석하였다. 결과: RMS 값은 P군에서 가장 작았고(25.56 ± 2.53 ㎛), 그다음 S군(35.27 ± 2.56 ㎛), E군(38.29 ± 4.12 ㎛) 순 이었다. S군과 E군 사이에는 유의차가 없었고, P군은 S군과 E군 보다 작았다(P < 0.05). 임플란트 각도와 RMS 값의 상관관계는 E군에서 유의하였다(P < 0.05). 결론:Pick-up 인상용 코핑 방법은 encoded healing abutment와 scan body 인상 채득 방법에 비해 더 높은 정확도를 보였고 encoded healing abutment와 scan body 인상 방법은 정확도에서 유의한 차이가 없었다. Encoded healing abutment의 임상적 사용은 가능하나 경사진 임플란트의 인상의 경우 주의하여 사용해야 할 것으로 사료된다.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of impression taking method using the encoded healing abutment, scan body and pick-up impression coping with different implant angulations. Materials and Methods: Master model was fabricated by 3D printer and three implants were placed into the model with 0°, 10° and 20° mesial angulation. The abutments were secured to each implants and master model was scanned to make a reference model. Group P model was fabricated using pick-up impression copings and model was scanned after securing the abutments. Encoded healing abutment (Group E) and scan body (Group S) were secured on the master model and digital impression was taken using intraoral scanner 15 times each. Each STL files of test groups were superimposed with reference model using best fit alignment and root mean square (RMS) value was analyzed. Results: The RMS values were lowest in Group P, followed by Group S and Group E. Group P showed significant difference with Group S and E (P < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Group S and E. Correlation between implant angulation and RMS value was significant in Group E (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The pick-up impression coping method showed higher accuracy and there was no significant difference in accuracy between the healing abutment and the scan body. The clinical use of the encoded healing abutment is possible, but it should be used with caution in the case of angulated implant.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Branemark PI, Zarb GA, Albrektsson T. Tissueintegrated prostheses: Osseointegration in clinical dentistry. Chicago; Quintessence; 1985. p. 611-12.
  2. Wee AG, Aquilino SA, Schneider RL. Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:167-78.
  3. 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.
  4. Del'Acqua MA, Chavez AM, Amaral AL, Compagnoni MA, Mollo Fde A Jr. Comparison of impression techniques and materials for an implant-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:771-6.
  5. Wee AG, Schneider RL, Aquilino SA, Huff TL, Lindquist TJ, Williamson DL. Evaluation of the accuracy of solid implant casts. J Prosthodont 1998;7:161-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.1998.tb00199.x
  6. Cabral LM, Guedes CG. Comparative analysis of 4 impression techniques for implants. Implant Dent 2007;16:187-94. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0b013e3180587b3f
  7. Conrad HJ, Pesun IJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:349-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60023-7
  8. Wenz HJ, Hertrampf K. Accuracy of impressions and casts using different implant impression techniques in a multi-implant system with an internal hex connection. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:39-47.
  9. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:285-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5
  10. Assuncao WG, Filho HG, Zaniquelli O. Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent 2004;13:358-66. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.id.0000144509.58901.f7
  11. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:761-3. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258
  12. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2008.350
  13. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
  14. Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:851-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5
  15. Abrahamsson I, Berglundh T, Lindhe J. The mucosal barrier following abutment dis/reconnection. An experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 1997;24:568-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1997.tb00230.x
  16. Grossmann Y, Pasciuta M, Finger IM. A novel technique using a coded healing abutment for the fabrication of a CAD/CAM titanium abutment for an implant-supported restoration. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:258-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.12.013
  17. Fuster-Torres MA, Albalat-Estela S, Alcaniz-Raya M, Penarrocha-Diago M. CAD/CAM dental systems in implant dentistry: update. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009;14:E141-5.
  18. Kapos T, Ashy LM, Gallucci GO, Weber HP, Wismeijer D. Computer-aided design and computerassisted manufacturing in prosthetic implant dentistry. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2009;24:110-7.
  19. Nayyar N, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy E. Using digitally coded healing abutments and an intraoral scanner to fabricate implant-supported, cement-retained restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:210-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)00073-5
  20. Fluegge T, Att W, Metzger M, Nelson K. A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies-an experimental approach. J Prosthodont 2017;26:34-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12362
  21. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont 2015;24:313-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12218
  22. Eliasson A, Ortorp A. The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14 Suppl 1:e30-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00344.x
  23. Ng SD, Tan KB, Teoh KH, Cheng AC, Nicholls JI. Three-dimensional accuracy of a digitally coded healing abutment implant impression system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:927-36. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3433
  24. Howell KJ, McGlumphy EA, Drago C, Knapik G. Comparison of the accuracy of Biomet 3i Encode robocast technology and conventional implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:228-40. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2546
  25. Al-Abdhullah K, Zandparsa R, Finkelman M, Hirayama H. An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110:90-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60346-7
  26. Moura RV, Kojima AN, Saraceni CHC, Bassolli L, Balducci I, Ozcan M, Mesquita AMM. Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for implant restorations. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e530-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12799
  27. Alexander Hazboun GB, Masri R, Romberg E, Kempler J, Driscoll CF. Effect of implant angulation and impression technique on impressions of NobelActive implants. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:425-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.10.009
  28. 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 2016;27:465-72.
  29. Filho HG, Mazaro JV, Vedovatto E, Assunacao WG, Dos Santos PH. Accuracy of impression techniques for implants. Part 2 - comparison of splinting techniques. J Prosthodont 2009;18:172-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849x.2008.00325.x
  30. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1360-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12994
  31. Guth 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
  32. Jemt T. Hjalmarsson L. In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between "virtual" and "physical" assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14 Suppl 1:e175-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x
  33. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:853-62. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3343
  34. Srinivasan M, Cantin Y, Mehl A, Gjengedal H, Muller F, Schimmel M. CAD/CAM milled removable complete dentures: an in vitro evaluation of trueness. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:2007-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1989-7
  35. Kim CM, Kim SR, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC. Trueness of milled prostheses according to number of ball-end mill burs. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:624-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.10.014
  36. Matta RE, Adler W, Wichmann M, Heckmann SM. Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:507-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.026
  37. Abduo J, Chen C, Le Breton E, Radu A, Szeto J, Judge R, Darby I. The effect of coded healing abutments on treatment duration and clinical outcome: a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing encode and conventional impression protocols. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:1172-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5386
  38. Mahn DH, Prestipino T. CAD/CAM implant abutments using coded healing abutments: a detailed description of the restorative process. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2013;34:612-5.
  39. Telleman G, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Meijer HJ. The use of a coded healing abutment as an impression coping to design and mill an individualized anatomic abutment: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:282-5.
  40. Dhima M. Correction of bone and softtissue deformity of the single implant in the aesthetic zone: a case treated with alveolar ridge preservation, modified roll technique and a digitally coded healing abutment. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2014;22:51-5.