• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.74-80
• /
• 2016

Even though an immediate denture (ID) is a practical prosthesis, fabricating an ID may be challenging, as unexpected removals of periodontally compromised teeth may occur during an impression procedure. This clinical report introduces a digital approach to a maxillary ID. An intraoral scanner was applied to prevent accidental extraction. A physical cast and a resin pattern of a framework were fabricated with rapid prototyping technology. A proper border and retention was also achieved by an altered cast impression.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.59 no.1
• /
• pp.79-87
• /
• 2021

The digital workflow of optical impressions by the intraoral scanner and CADCAM manufacture of dental prostheses is actively developing. The complex process of traditional impression taking, definite cast fabrication, wax pattern making, and casting has been shortened, and the number of patient's visits can also be reduced. Advances in intraoral scanner technology have increased the precision and accuracy of optical impression, and its indication is progressively widened toward the long span fixed dental prosthesis. This case report describes the long span implant case, and the operator fully utilized digital workflow such as computer-guided implant surgical template and CAD-CAM produced restoration after the digital impression. The provisional restoration and customized abutments were prepared with the optical impression taken on the same day of implant surgery. Moreover, the final prosthesis was fabricated with the digital scan while utilizing the same customized abutment from the provisional restoration. During the data acquisition step, stl data of customized abutments, previously scanned at the time of provisional restoration delivery, were imported and automatically aligned with digital impression data using an 'A.I. abutment matching algorithm' the intraoral scanner software. By using this algorithm, it was possible to obtain the subgingival margin without the gingival retraction or abutment removal. Using the digital intraoral scanner's advanced functions, the operator could shorten the total treatment time. So that both the patient and the clinician could experience convenient and effective treatment, and it was possible to manufacture a prosthesis with predictability.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.5
• /
• pp.316-326
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. Purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the accuracy of different intraoral scans versus laboratory scans of impressions and casts for the digitization of an edentulous maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A PEEK model of an edentulous maxilla, featuring four hemispheres on the alveolar ridges in region 13, 17, 23 and 27, was industrially digitized to obtain a reference dataset (REF). Intraoral scans using Cerec Primescan AC (PRI) and Cerec AC Omnicam (OMN), as well as conventional impressions (scannable polyvinyl siloxane) were carried out (n = 25). Conventional impressions (E5I) and referring plaster casts were scanned with the inEOS X5 (E5M). All datasets were exported in STL and analyzed (Geomagic Qualify). Linear and angular differences were evaluated by virtually constructed measurement points in the centers of the hemispheres (P13, P17, P23, P27) and lines between the points (P17-P13, P17-P23, P17-P27). Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test were performed to test for normal distribution, Kruskal-Wallis-H test, and Mann-Whitney-U test to detect significant differences in trueness, followed by 2-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test to detect significant differences in precision (P < .008). RESULTS. Group PRI showed the highest trueness in linear and angular parameters (P < .001), while group E5I showed the highest precision (P < .001). CONCLUSION. Intraoral scan data obtained using Primescan showed the highest trueness while the indirect digitization of impressions showed the highest precision. To enhance the workflow, indirect digitization of the impression itself appears to be a reasonable technique, as it combines fast access to the digital workflow with the possibility of functional impression of mucosal areas.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 2024

PURPOSE. The aim of this stuldy was to compare the clinical marginal fit of CAD-CAM inlays obtained from intraoral digital impression or addition silicone impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study included 31 inlays for prosthodontics purposes of 31 patients: 15 based on intraoral digital impressions (DI group); and 16 based on a conventional impression technique (CI group). Inlays included occlusal and a non-occlusal surface. Inlays were milled in ceramic. The inlay-teeth interface was replicated by placing each inlay in its corresponding uncemented clinical preparation and taking interface impressions with silicone material from occlusal and free surfaces. Interface analysis was made using white light confocal microscopy (WLCM) (scanning area: 694 × 510 ㎛²) from the impression samples. The gap size and the inlay overextension were measured from the microscopy topographies. For analytical purposes (i.e., 95-%-confidence intervals calculations and P-value calculations), the procedure REGRESS in SUDAAN was used to account for clustering (i.e., multiple measurements). For p-value calculation, the log transformation of the dependent variables was used to normalize the distributions. RESULTS. Marginal fit values for occlusal and free surfaces were affected by the type of impression. There were no differences between surfaces (occlusal vs. free). Gap obtained for DI group was 164 ± 84 ㎛ and that for CI group was 209 ± 104 ㎛, and there were statistical differences between them (p = .041). Mean overextension values were 60 ± 59 ㎛ for DI group and 67 ± 73 ㎛ for CI group, and there were no differences between then (p = .553). CONCLUSION. Digital impression achieved inlays with higher clinical marginal fit and performed better than the conventional silicone materials.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.299-306
• /
• 2017

In this case report, immediate loading of an implant-supported single-tooth prosthesis through complete digital workflow. A patient presented for restoration of missing a single tooth in the mandibular first molar. The digital impression was made with intraoral scanner and implant was placed using surgical guide pre-fabricated with pre-operative computed tomography (CT) and scan data. After 1 week later, prefabricated customized abutment and provisional restoration were connected for immediate loading. After 8 weeks later, abutment level impression was taken by intraoral scanner. At 3 months later from implant installation, monolithic zirconia crown were fabricated. This clinical report presents satisfying result in accuracy and patient satisfaction. A completely modeless digital procedure met expectations regarding precision, esthetics, and functionality.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.236-249
• /
• 2022

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.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.4
• /
• pp.432-438
• /
• 2019

Accurate impression taking for the success of implant prosthesis is a very important process. Methods of taking implant impression include the conventional method using impression coping and impression material, and the digital method using an intraoral scanner and scanbody. However, the impression coping or the scanbody must install after remove healing abutment. Because of this, the dentist must repeat the process of removing and installing the healing abutment, the impression coping or the scanbody several times. In addition, the impression coping or the scanbody rises higher than the occlusal surface, so the patient has the inconvenience of constantly maintaining the open state. Recently, a scannable healing abutment, which can be scanned by a intraoral scanner directly, without the need to remove the healing abutment by applying a scannable part of the scanbody to the healing abutment, was introduced. We present a case of single posterior implant prosthesis using a scannable healing abutment.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.54 no.4
• /
• pp.379-386
• /
• 2016

Purpose: The present study aims at researching the subjective satisfaction of patients who have experienced both conventional impression taking and digital impression taking to measure the possibility of wide clinical application of digital impression. Materials and methods: The study surveyed 170 adult patients over the age of 20, between October 2015 and April 2016, who voluntarily consented to participation and who experienced both conventional impression and digital impression at five dental hospitals that use intraoral digital impression. A total of 128 surveys were used for data analysis, involving frequency analysis, multiple response frequency analysis, descriptive statistics, and contingency table analysis, with the significance level set at 0.05. Results: Responses on the reason for taking impressions using the digital method appeared in the order of 'for implant treatment' (43.8%), 'for crown treatment' (30.5%), and 'for inlay treatment' (15.6%). Patients satisfaction was higher for digital impression taking than conventional impression taking (P<.05). As the preferred choice of impression, digital impression (60.2%) was higher than conventional impression (11.7%). Responses on the reason for choosing digital impression taking appeared in the order of 'no vomiting reflex' (35.1%), 'reliability of 3D digital scanning' (33.8%), and 'short time' (33.8%). Conclusion: The patients preferred digital impression taking to conventional impression taking in terms of satisfaction.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.212-222
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed completearch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P<.05). RESULTS. The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, $\tilde{x}=02:58$; CI, $\tilde{x}=31:48$) (P<.0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: $\tilde{x}=05:36$; 4: $\tilde{x}=09:16$) (P<.0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P<.005). CONCLUSION. Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.221-230
• /
• 2015

Recently, traditional impression has been rapidly replaced by digital impression using intraoral scanning. There are more than 7 types of intraoral scanners available in the dental market. It is difficult to make effective strategic choices due to a lack of standards and guidelines for optimal intraoral scanning devices. So far, little has been reported about evaluating the ergonomic aspect of these scanners. This literature review compares current intraoral scanning systems based on different types of handles and suggests the most comfortable, user-friendly intraoral scanners from an ergonomic standpoint.