[KSCI] Korea Science Citation Index Service

http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460

Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition

Rhee, Ye-Kyu (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
Huh, Yoon-Hyuk (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
Cho, Lee-Ra (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
Park, Chan-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)

Publication Information

The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.7, no.6, 2015 , pp. 460-467 More about this Journal

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriate impression technique by analyzing the superimposition of 3D digital model for evaluating accuracy of conventional impression technique and digital impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-four patients who had no periodontitis or temporomandibular joint disease were selected for analysis. As a reference model, digital impressions with a digital impression system were performed. As a test models, for conventional impression dual-arch and full-arch, impression techniques utilizing addition type polyvinylsiloxane for fabrication of cast were applied. 3D laser scanner is used for scanning the cast. Each 3 pairs for 25 STL datasets were imported into the inspection software. The three-dimensional differences were illustrated in a color-coded map. For three-dimensional quantitative analysis, 4 specified contact locations(buccal and lingual cusps of second premolar and molar) were established. For two-dimensional quantitative analysis, the sectioning from buccal cusp to lingual cusp of second premolar and molar were acquired depending on the tooth axis. RESULTS. In color-coded map, the biggest difference between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression was seen (P<.05). In three-dimensional analysis, the biggest difference was seen between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression and the smallest difference was seen between dual-arch and full-arch impression. CONCLUSION. The two- and three-dimensional deviations between intraoral scanner and dual-arch impression was bigger than full-arch and dual-arch impression (P<.05). The second premolar showed significantly bigger three-dimensional deviations than the second molar in the three-dimensional deviations (P>.05).

Keywords

Intraoral scanning; Laser scanning; Two-dimensional deviation; Three-dimensional deviation;

Citations & Related Records

Reference

1	The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:10-92. DOI
2	Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:285-91. DOI
3	Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13. DOI
4	Cox JR, Brandt RL, Hughes HJ. The double arch impression technique: a solution to prevent supraocclusion in the indirect restoration. Gen Dent 2000;48:86-91.
5	Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:143-9. DOI
6	Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Phillips KM. A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a completearch custom tray. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:228-34. DOI
7	Hahn SM, Millstein PL, Kinnunen TH, Wright RF. The effect of impression volume and double-arch trays on the registration of maximum intercuspation. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:362-7. DOI
8	Kang AH, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Wataha JC. Accuracy of a reformulated fast-set vinyl polysiloxane impression material using dual-arch trays. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:332-41. DOI
9	Johnson GH, Mancl LA, Schwedhelm ER, Verhoef DR, Lepe X. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:13-22. DOI
10	Parker MH, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Reid DE. Comparison of occlusal contacts in maximum intercuspation for two impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:255-9. DOI
11	Cox JR, Brandt RL, Hughes HJ. A clinical pilot study of the dimensional accuracy of double-arch and complete-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:510-5. DOI
12	Cox JR. A clinical study comparing marginal and occlusal accuracy of crowns fabricated from double-arch and completearch impressions. Aust Dent J 2005;50:90-4. DOI
13	Kaplowitz GJ. Trouble-shooting dual arch impressions II. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:1277-81. DOI
14	Burke FJ, Crisp RJ. A practice-based assessment of the handling of a fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane impression material used with the dual-arch tray technique. Quintessence Int 2001;32:805-10.
15	Christensen GJ. Ensuring accuracy and predictability with double-arch impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:1123-5. DOI
16	Johnson GH, Mancl LA, Schwedhelm ER, Verhoef DR, Lepe X. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:13-22. DOI
17	Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94. DOI
18	Touchstone A, Nieting T, Ulmer N. Digital transition: the collaboration between dentists and laboratory technicians on CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2010;141:15S-9S. DOI
19	Choi HS, Moon JE, Kim SH. The Application of CAD/ CAM in Dentistry. J Korean Dent Assoc 2012;50:110-7.
20	Miyazaki T, Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Aust Dent J 2011;56:97-106.
21	Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-9. DOI
22	Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1201-8. DOI
23	Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont 2015;24:313-21. DOI
24	Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. DOI
25	Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64. DOI
26	Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 2007;35:903-8. DOI
27	da Costa JB, Pelogia F, Hagedorn B, Ferracane JL. Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. Oper Dent 2010;35:324-9. DOI
28	Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions?. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:761-3. DOI
29	Price RB, Gerrow JD, Sutow EJ, MacSween R. The dimensional accuracy of 12 impression material and die stone combinations. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:169-74.
30	Luthardt RG, Kuhmstedt P, Walter MH. A new method for the computer-aided evaluation of three-dimensional changes in gypsum materials. Dent Mater 2003;19:19-24. DOI
31	Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:853-62. DOI
32	Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1461-71. DOI
33	Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-9. DOI
34	Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:851-6. DOI

Reference

6	(2017) PLOS ONE In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques / 12 (6) , e0179188
1687-8736	(2017) International Journal of Dentistry Accuracy Evaluation of a Stereolithographic Surgical Template for Dental Implant Insertion Using 3D Superimposition Protocol / 2017 (1687-8736) , 1
2040-2309	(2017) Journal of Healthcare Engineering Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression / 2017 (2040-2309) , 1
3	(2017) Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine The influence of change in slice thickness on the accuracy of reconstruction of cranium geometry / 231 (3) , 197
6	(2017) Implant Dentistry Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy / 26 (6) , 929
5	(2017) The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Verification of a computer-aided replica technique for evaluating prosthesis adaptation using statistical agreement analysis / 9 (5) , 358
1	(2017) BMC Oral Health Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature / 17 (1)
5	(2018) The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics study / 10 (5) , 388
1	(2017) Scientific Reports Efficient digitalization method for dental restorations using micro-CT data / 7 (1)
1059941X	(2018) Journal of Prosthodontics A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques / (1059941X)
3	(2018) Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine Improved accuracy of mandible geometry reconstruction at the stage of data processing and modeling / 41 (3) , 687
2	(2015) KJO : Korean journal of orthodontics Full-arch accuracy of five intraoral scanners: In vivo analysis of trueness and precision / 51 (2) , 95
9	(2018) PLOS ONE Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions / 13 (9) , e0202916
4	(2018) The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Accuracy of new implant impression technique using dual arch tray and bite impression coping / 10 (4) , 265
3	(2018) The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method / 10 (3) , 245
2	(2015) The Journal of oral implantology Accuracy of Casts Fabricated by Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions / 45 (2) , 94
5	(2015) Clinical implant dentistry and related research The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete‐arch implant scans / 21 (5) , 987
12	(2015) The journal of contemporary dental practice Evaluation of the Adaptation of Complete Dentures Fabricated Using Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Techniques / 21 (12) , 1384
1	(2015) BMC oral health Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study / 20 (1) , 287
2	(2015) Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists Three‐Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions / 30 (2) , 163
11	(2021) Applied sciences Digital Procedures Compared to Conventional Gypsum Casts in the Manufacturing of CAD/CAM Adhesive Restorations: 3D Surface Trueness and Interfacial Adaptation Analysis / 11 (11) , 5060
4	(2015) Orthodontics & craniofacial research Comparative study of three composite materials in bonding attachments for clear aligners / 24 (4) , 520
21	(2021) Applied sciences Accuracy of Implant Level Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry Impression Techniques in a Complete Arch with Angled and Parallel Implants: An In Vitro Study / 11 (21) , 9859