Comparative Analysis of Precision of Various Digital Impressions for Full-arch Implant-supported Prosthesis

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2023.10.005

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the accuracy of conventional impression, intraoral scanning, multi-unit bridge-assisted intraoral scanning, and stereophotography techniques for maxillary full-arch implant-supported prosthesis. Methods: An aircraft-grade aluminium alloy model of the maxillary edentulous jaw, encompassing six implants, was constructed. Impressions were acquired through conventional techniques, intraoral scanning, multi-unit bridge-assisted intraoral scanning, and stereophotography techniques. The three-dimensional deviation in each of these impressions was measured to evaluate the trueness and precision. Results: The three-dimensional deviation exhibited by stereophotography techniques was less than that of the conventional impression, intraoral scanning, and multi-unit bridge-assisted intraoral scanning. However, there was no statistically significant difference amongst the latter three groups. Conclusion: The stereophotography technique demonstrates superior trueness and precision, establishing itself as an optimal technique for full-arch implant-supported prosthesis.

Key words: edentulous jaw, intraoral scanning, stereophotography technique

CHENG Jing, LIU Hailin, ZHUO Xiangyang, LI Ruiying. Comparative Analysis of Precision of Various Digital Impressions for Full-arch Implant-supported Prosthesis[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2023, 39(10): 875-879.

References

[1] Jemt T. Implant survival in the edentulous jaw-30 years of experience. Part Ⅰ: A retro-prospective multivariate regression analysis of overall implant failure in 4,585 consecutively treated arches [J]. Int J Prosthodont, 2018, 31(5): 425-435.
[2] Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, et al. Implant framework misfit: A systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2021, 23(2):244-258.
[3] Filho HG, Mazaro JV, Vedovatto E, et al. Accuracy of impression techniques for implants. Part 2-comparison of splinting techniques [J]. J Prosthodont, 2009, 18(2):172-176.
[4] ISO 5725-1:2023, Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results-Part 1: General principles and definitions [S].
[5] O'Toole S, Osnes C, Bartlett D, et al. Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment [J]. Dent Mater, 2019, 35(3):495-500.
[6] Sanda M, Miyoshi K, Baba K. Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review [J]. Int J Implant Dent, 2021, 7(1):97.
[7] Marques S, Ribeiro P, Falcão C, et al. Digital impressions in implant dentistry: A literature review [J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2021, 18(3):1020.
[8] Marshaha NJ, Azhari AA, Assery MK, et al. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study [J]. J Prosthodont, 2023.
[9] Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, et al. Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2022, 128(5):1017-1023.
[10] Miyoshi K, Tanaka S, Yokoyama S, et al. Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2020, 31(1):74-83.
[11] Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, et al. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature [J]. Eur J Oral Implantol, 2017, 10 Suppl 1:121-138.
[12] Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, et al. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2014, 111(3):186-194.
[13] Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, et al. The cumulative effect of error in the digital workflow for complete-arch implant-supported frameworks: An in vitro study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2022, 33(9):886-899.
[14] Pozzi A, Arcuri L, Lio F, et al. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: An in vitro study [J]. J Dent, 2022, 119:104072.
[15] Rivara F, Lumetti S, Calciolari E, et al. Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2016, 115(6):703-711.
[16] Revilla-León M, Rubenstein J, Methani MM, et al. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2023, 129(1):160-165.
[17] Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, et al. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2023, 129(2):354-362.