Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2020.58.2.169

Clinical accuracy of impression technique using digital superimposition of customized abutment with subgingival margin: A case report  

Kim, Jin-Wan (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Jeong, Chang-Mo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Yun, Mi-Jung (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Lee, So-Hyoun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Lee, Hyeonjong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Huh, Jung-Bo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.58, no.2, 2020 , pp. 169-175 More about this Journal
Abstract
Traditionally, gingival retraction has been performed to obtain customized abutment impressions with subgingival margins of the implant supported prosthesis. However, gingival retraction may have side effects such as gingival recession and bleed, leading to an inaccurate impression. In order to prevent these problems, in this case, the new technique has been introduced; a customized abutment which is designed for superimposition is used. Before the connection of the abutment to the implant fixture, pre-scanned shape data are stored, and then the optical impression without gingival retraction is obtained after connecting to the fixture. The suprastructure is fabricated by superimposing the two data. This technique showed the clinical efficacy of fabricating the implant supported prosthesis with subgingival margin, which satisfied the aesthetics, convenience, and clinically acceptable marginal and internal fit.
Keywords
Customized abutment; Intraoral scanner; Subgingival margin; Superimposition;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. J Prosthodont 2015;24:313-21.   DOI
2 Joda T, Bragger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:e185-9.   DOI
3 Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:111-5.   DOI
4 Seo KS, Kim SJ, Kwon JH, Chang JS. Implant digital impression with intraoral scanners: A literature review. The Korean Acad of Oral & Maxillofacial Implantology 2017;21:2-13.   DOI
5 Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-4.   DOI
6 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.e2.   DOI
7 Lin WS, Harris BT, Morton D. The use of a scannable impression coping and digital impression technique to fabricate a customized anatomic abutment and zirconia restoration in the esthetic zone. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:187-91.   DOI
8 Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-9.   DOI
9 Kutkut A, Abu-Hammad O, Mitchell R. Esthetic considerations for reconstructing implant emergence profile using titanium and zirconia custom implant abutments: Fifty case series report. J Oral Implantol 2015;41:554-61.   DOI
10 Bennani V, Schwass D, Chandler N. Gingival retraction techniques for implants versus teeth: current status. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:1354-63.   DOI
11 Azer SS. A simplified technique for creating a customized gingival emergence profile for implant-supported crowns. J Prosthodont 2010;19:497-501.   DOI
12 Ericsson I, Lindhe J. Probing depth at implants and teeth. An experimental study in the dog. J Clin Periodontol 1993;20:623-7.   DOI
13 Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343-52.   DOI
14 Molin M, Karlsson S. The fit of gold inlays and three ceramic inlay systems. A clinical and in vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:201-6.   DOI
15 Lee JW, Park JM. Evaluation of marginal and internal gap under model-free monolithic zirconia restoration fabricated by digital intraoral scanner. J Korean Acad Prosthodont 2016;54:210-7.   DOI
16 Miller RJ, Kuo E, Choi W. Validation of align technology's treat III digital model superimposition tool and its case application. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6:143-9.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 Guth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D, Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:1445-55.   DOI
19 Fluegge T, Att W, Metzger M, Nelson K. A Novel Method to Evaluate Precision of Optical Implant Impressions with Commercial Scan Bodies-An Experimental Approach. J Prosthodont 2017;26:34-41.   DOI
20 Kim KS, Lim YJ, Kim MJ, Kwon HB, Yang JH, Lee JB, Yim SH. Variation in the total lengths of abutment/implant assemblies generated with a function of applied tightening torque in external and internal implant-abutment connection. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:834-9.   DOI