The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Effect of angulation on the 3D trueness of conventional and digital implant impressions for multi-unit restorations

  • Ozay Onoral (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University) ;
  • Sevcan Kurtulmus-Yilmaz (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University) ;
  • Dilem Toksoy (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University) ;
  • Oguz Ozan (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Near East University)
  • Received : 2023.08.28
  • Accepted : 2023.12.15
  • Published : 2023.12.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The study aimed to determine the influence of implant angulation on the trueness of multi-unit implant impressions taken through different techniques and strategies. MATERIALS AND METHODS. As reference models, three partially edentulous mandibular models (Model 1: No angulation; Model 2: No angulation for #33, 15-degree distal angulation for #35 and #37; Model 3: No angulation for #33, 25-degree distal angulation for #35 and #37) were created by modifying the angulations of implant analogues. Using a lab scanner, these reference models were scanned. The obtained data were preserved and utilized as virtual references. Three intraoral scanning (IOS) strategies: IOS-Omnicam, ISO-Quadrant, and IOS-Consecutive, as well as two traaditional techniques: splinted open tray (OT) and closed tray (CT), were used to create impressions from each reference model. The best-fit alignment approach was used to sequentially superimpose the reference and test scan data. Computations and statistical analysis of angular (AD), linear (LD), and 3D deviations (RMS) were performed. RESULTS. Model type, impression technique, as well as interaction factor, all demonstrated a significant influence on AD and LD values for all implant locations (P < .05). The Model 1 and SOT techniques displayed the lowest mean AD and LD values across all implant locations. When considering interaction factors, CT-Model 3 and SOT-Model 1 exhibited the highest and lowest mean AD and LD values, respectively. Model type, impression technique, and interaction factor all revealed significant effects on RMS values (P ≤ .001). CT-Model 3 and SOT-Model 1 presented the highest and lowest mean RMS values, respectively. CONCLUSION. Splinted-OT and IOS-Omnicam are recommended for multi-unit implant impressions to enhance trueness, potentially benefiting subsequent manufacturing stages.

Keywords

References

  1. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70229-5
  2. Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001;10:85-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200104000-00003
  3. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10:121-38.
  4. Richi MW, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O. Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants. Head Face Med 2020;16:1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00225-3
  5. Klineberg IJ, Murray GM. Design of superstructures for osseointegrated fixtures. Swed Dent J Suppl 1985;28: 63-9.
  6. Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(83)80101-2
  7. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270-6.
  8. Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:506-15.
  9. 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
  10. Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:107-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60026-8
  11. Laohverapanich K, Luangchana P, Anunmana C, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S. Different implant subgingi val depth affects the trueness and precision of the 3d dental implant position: a comparative in vitro study among five digital scanners and a conventional technique. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021;36:1111-20. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.9014
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Chia VA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, Teo JW, Wong KM, Tan KB. In vitro three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: the effect of implant angulation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:313-21. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5087
  15. Moreira AH, Rodrigues NF, Pinho AC, Fonseca JC, Vilaca JL. Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17 Suppl 2:e751-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12310
  16. Sanda M, Miyoshi K, Baba K. Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7:1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00352-9
  17. Spitznagel F, Horvath S, Gierthmuehlen P. Prosthetic protocols in implant-based oral rehabilitations: A systematic review on the clinical outcome of monolithic all-ceramic single- and multi-unit prostheses. Eur J Oral Implant 2017;10:89-99.
  18. Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, Chochlidakis K. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 2020;29:660-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13211
  19. Robles-Medina M, Romeo-Rubio M, Salido MP, Pradies G. Digital intraoral impression methods: an update on accuracy. Curr Oral Heal Rep 2020;7:361-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-020-00285-z
  20. Gomez-Polo M, Alvarez F, Ortega R, Gomez-Polo C, Barmak AB, Kois JC, Revilla-Leon M. Influence of the implant scan body bevel location, implant angulation and position on intraoral scanning accuracy: An in vitro study. J Dent 2022;121:104122.
  21. Revilla-Leon M, Att W, Ozcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:470-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.005
  22. Rotar RN, Faur AB, Pop D, Jivanescu A. Scanning distance influence on the intraoral scanning accuracy-an in vitro study. Materials (Basel) 2022;15:3061.
  23. Zhang YJ, Qiao SC, Qian SJ, Zhang CN, Shi JY, Lai HC. Influence of different factors on the accuracy of digital impressions of multiple implants: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2021;36:442-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.8532
  24. Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital Implant impression technique accuracy: a systematic review. Implant Dent 2017;26:929-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000683
  25. Marques S, Ribeiro P, Falcao C, Lemos BF, Rios-Carrasco B, Rios-Santos JV, Herrero-Climent M. Digital impressions in implant dentistry: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18:1020.
  26. An H, Langas EE, Gill AS. Effect of scanning speed, scanning pattern, and tip size on the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. J Prosthet Dent 2022:S0022- 3913(22)00326-2.
  27. Cortes ARG, Agius A-M, No-Cortes J. Factors affecting trueness of intraoral scans: an update. Appl Sci 2022; 12:6675.
  28. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps I. Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions. PLoS One 2018;13:e0202916.
  29. Passos L, Meiga S, Brigagao V, Street A. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:307-19.
  30. Gavounelis NA, Gogola CC, Halazonetis DJ. The effect of scanning strategy on intraoral scanner's accuracy. Dent J (Basel) 2022;10:123.
  31. Anh JW, Park JM, Chun YS, Kim M, Kim M. A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction. Korean J Orthod 2016;46:3-12. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.3
  32. Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont 2020;29:518-23. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13158
  33. Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:792-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5431
  34. Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:102-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3592
  35. Schmidt A, Rein PE, Wostmann B, Schlenz MA. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021;32:460-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13715
  36. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010
  37. Tsagkalidis G, Tortopidis D, Mpikos P, Kaisarlis G, Koidis P. Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:517-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.005
  38. Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Guth JF, Happe A, Beuer F. Evaluation of impression accuracy for a four-implant mandibular model--a digital approach. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:1137-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0622-z
  39. Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O, Ozcelik TB, Yagiz A. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants. J Dent 2014;42:1551-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.008
  40. Elshenawy EA, Alam-Eldein AM, Abd Elfatah FA. Cast accuracy obtained from different impression techniques at different implant angulations (in vitro study). Int J Implant Dent 2018;4:9.
  41. Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e902-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12764
  42. Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:543-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.018
  43. Abduo J, Palamara JEA. Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation. Int J Implant Dent 2021;7:75.
  44. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent 2018;2018:3761750.
  45. Lee JH, Bae JH, Lee SY. Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials. Sci Rep 2021;11:21892.
  46. Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12 Suppl 1:e63-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00167.x