Accuracy of Conventional versus Digital Implant Impressions in Edentulous Models in Vitro

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2022.11.006

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To investigate the difference of accuracy between conventional and digital impression methods with different numbers of implants in the maxillary and mandibular edentulous models. Methods: After two, four, and six implants were placed in the maxillary and mandibular edentulous standard models, both conventional impression and digital impression were made. The differences in the trueness and precision between two methods were analyzed in terms of surface property, three-dimensional linearity, and angularity using reverse engineering software and a three-coordinate measuring machine. Results: (1) The trueness of digital impression method was higher than that of conventional impression method in at least one aspect for maxillary and mandibular standard models with different number of implants. (2) The precision of the digital method was higher for maxillary and mandibular standard models with different number of implants. Conclusion: Within the limit of this experimental condition, the accuracy of digital implant impressions was higher in edentulous arch.

Key words: edentulous, implant restoration, impression techniques, digital, accuracy

LI Chaoyue, CHAO Jiarui, WANG Zhenyu, CHEN Du, LIU Fei, SHEN Jiefei. Accuracy of Conventional versus Digital Implant Impressions in Edentulous Models in Vitro[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2022, 38(11): 1026-1032.

References

[1] Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, et al. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(4):836-845.
[2] Baig MR. Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: a systematic review [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(4):869-880.
[3] Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC, Peláez-Rico J, et al. Accuracy of digital dental implants impression taking with intraoral scanners compared with conventional impression techniques: A systematic review of in vitro studies [J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2022, 19(4):2026.
[4] Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2017, 28(11):1360-1367.
[5] Revilla-León M, Att W, Ozcan M, et al. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021, 125(3):470-478.
[6] Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, et al. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes [J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2016, 27(4):465-472.
[7] Ribeiro P, Herrero-Climent M, Díaz-Castro C, et al. Accuracy of implant casts generated with conventional and digital impressions-an in vitro study [J]. Int J Environ Res Public Health, 2018, 15(8):1599.
[8] Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, et al. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: Effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch [J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2019, 34(2):366-380.
[9] Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2019, 122(6):543-549.
[10] Çakmak G, Yilmaz H, Treviño A, et al. The effect of scanner type and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2020, 22(4):533-541.
[11] Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2013, 109(2):121-128.
[12] Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, et al. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study [J]. PLoS One, 2016, 11(9):e0163107.
[13] Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, et al. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study [J]. Bmc Oral Health, 2017, 17(1):92.
[14] 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, 2021:S0022-3913(21)00058-5.
[15] Paratelli A, Vania S, Gómez-Polo C, et al. Techniques to improve the accuracy of complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans: A systematic review [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021:S0022-3913(21)00486-8.
[16] Gómez-Polo M, Ballesteros J, Perales-Padilla P, et al. Guided implant scanning: A procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 124(2):135-139.
[17] Mizumoto RM, Alp G, zcan M, et al. The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans [J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2019, 21(5):987-994.
[18] Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, et al. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An invitro study [J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2021: S0022-3913(21)00269-9.