The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions: two and three dimensional evaluations

  • Received : 2022.04.06
  • Accepted : 2022.07.29
  • Published : 2022.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The present study compared the accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The experimental models were divided into six groups depending on the implant location and the scanning span. Digital impressions were captured using the intraoral optical scanner TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Conventional impressions were taken with the monophase impression material based on addition-cured silicones, Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A high-precision laboratory scanner D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to obtain digital data of resin models and stone casts. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from scanner were imported into the analysis software Geomagic Qualify 14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and scan body deviations were determined through two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses. Each scan body was measured five times. The Sidak t test was used to analyze the experimental data. RESULTS. Implant position and scanning distance affected the impression accuracy. For a unilateral arch implant and the mandible models with two implants, no significant difference was observed in the accuracy between the digital and conventional implant impressions on scan bodies; however, the corresponding differences for trans-arch implants and mandible with six implants were extremely significant (P<.001). CONCLUSION. For short-span scanning, the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions did not differ significantly. For long-span scanning, the precision of digital impressions was significantly inferior to that of the traditional impressions.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by the Medical Science Research Projects of Dalian (No. 1911082).

References

  1. Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Branemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg 1981; 10:387-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4
  2. Zarb GA, Schmitt A. The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants in posterior partially edentulous patients. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:189-96.
  3. Goll GE. Production of accurately fitting full-arch im-plant frameworks: Part I--Clinical procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:377-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90266-Y
  4. Rangert B, Jemt T, Jorneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989;4:241-7.
  5. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:836-45. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3625
  6. Stumpel LJ 3rd, Quon SJ. Adhesive abutment cylinder luting. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:398-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90188-T
  7. Lee SJ, Cho SB. Accuracy of five implant impression technique: effect of splinting materials and methods. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:177-85. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2011.3.4.177
  8. Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J 2018;12:118-24. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010118
  9. Johansson G, Palmqvist S. Complications, supple - mentary treatment, and maintenance in edentulous arches with implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:89-92.
  10. Gallardo YR, Bohner L, Tortamano P, Pigozzo MN, Lagana DC, Sesma N. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119: 214-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.007
  11. Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1318-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12982
  12. Park HR, Park JM, Chun YS, Lee KN, Kim M. Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking. BMC Oral Health 2015;15:151.
  13. Joda T, Bragger U. Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:1401-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12753
  14. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015
  15. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12375
  16. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116: 184-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017
  17. Pradies G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martinez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ce- ramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital in traoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent 2015;43:201-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.007
  18. Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28:648-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12853
  19. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or-thop 2013;144:471-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
  20. Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:673-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
  21. Mino T, Maekawa K, Ueda A, Higuchi S, Sejima J, Takeuchi T, Hara ES, Kimura-Ono A, Sonoyama W, Kuboki T. In silico comparison of the reproducibility of full-arch implant provisional restorations to final restoration between a 3D Scan/CAD/CAM technique and the conventional method. J Prosthodont Res 2015;59: 152-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2014.12.001
  22. Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS One 2016;11: e0158800.
  23. Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, Zechner W, Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:128-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001
  24. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  25. Zimmermann M. Intraoral scanning systems: purchase decisions and system overview. Magyar Fogorvos, 2017:6-14.
  26. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10.
  27. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:1113-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12234
  28. Tsirogiannis P, Reissmann DR, Heydecke G. Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:328-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.028
  29. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1495-504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y
  30. van Noort R. The future of dental devices is digital. Dent Mater 2012;28:3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.10.014
  31. Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. PLoS One 2016;11:e0163107.
  32. Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:403-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
  33. Sakornwimon N, Leevailoj C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients' preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118: 386-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.019
  34. Joda T, Bragger U. Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: a prospective clinical crossover trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:1047-53. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3963
  35. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  36. Goracci C, Franchi L, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:422-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv077
  37. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116: 184-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017
  38. 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.
  39. 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
  40. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters. Implant Dent 2015;24:498-504. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000283
  41. Mizumoto RM, Alp G, Ozcan M, Yilmaz B. The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:987-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12821
  42. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 2012;7:e43312.
  43. 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
  44. Hack GD, Patzelt SBM. Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices: An in-vitro investigation. ADA Prof Prod Rev 2015;10:1-5.
  45. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:92.
  46. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2015;59:236-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2015.06.002
  47. Carr AB. Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1992;7:468-75.
  48. Jang HK, Kim S, Shim JS, Lee KW, Moon HS. Accuracy of impressions for internal-connection implant prostheses with various divergent angles. Int J Oral Maxil-lofac Implants 2011;26:1011-5.
  49. 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
  50. Yang X, Lv P, Liu Y, Si W, Feng H. Accuracy of digital impressions and fitness of single crowns based on digital impressions. Materials 2015;8:3945-57. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8073945
  51. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, Qian F. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont 2014;23:610-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12180
  52. Knechtle N, Wiedemeier D, Mehl A, Ender A. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2021:S0022-3913(21)00019-6.
  53. Ma B, Yue X, Sun Y, Peng L, Geng W. Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:636.