Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.271

Accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions for fixed partial dentures: A comparative clinical study  

Gedrimiene, Agne (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University)
Adaskevicius, Rimas (Department of Electrical Power Systems, Faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology)
Rutkunas, Vygandas (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics / v.11, no.5, 2019 , pp. 271-279 More about this Journal
Abstract
PURPOSE. The newest technologies for digital implant impression (DII) taking are developing rapidly and showing acceptable clinical results. However, scientific literature is lacking data from clinical studies about the accuracy of DII. The aim of this study was to compare digital and conventional dental implant impressions (CII) in a clinical environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-four fixed zirconia restorations supported by 2 implants were fabricated using conventional open-tray impression technique with splinted transfers (CII group) and scan with Trios 3 IOS (3Shape) (DII group). After multiple verification procedures, master models were scanned using laboratory scanner D800 (3Shape). 3D models from conventional and digital workflow were imported to reverse engineering software and superimposed with high resolution 3D CAD models of scan bodies. Distance between center points, angulation, rotation, vertical shift, and surface mismatch of the scan bodies were measured and compared between conventional and digital impressions. RESULTS. Statistically significant differences were found for: a) inter-implant distance, b) rotation, c) vertical shift, and d) surface mismatch differences, comparing DII and CII groups for mesial and distal implant scan bodies ($P{\leq}.05$). CONCLUSION. Recorded linear differences between digital and conventional impressions were of limited clinical significance with two implant-supported restorations.
Keywords
Digital impression; Dental implant; Impression accuracy;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Joda T, Katsoulis J, Bragger U. Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2016;18:946-54.   DOI
2 Baig MR. Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:869-80.   DOI
3 Mormann WH, Brandestini M, Lutz F, Barbakow F, Gotsch T. CAD-CAM ceramic inlays and onlays: a case report after 3 years in place. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:517-20.   DOI
4 Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:799-806.   DOI
5 Rutkunas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, Vaitiekunas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10:101-120.
6 Biagioni A, Ferrari M, Pecciarini M. A systematic review about randomized clinical trials on digital impressions on sound teeth. J Osseointegration 2019;11:2-6.
7 Flugge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:374-92.
8 Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:829.   DOI
9 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.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 Abduo J. Fit of CAD/CAM implant frameworks: a comprehensive review. J Oral Implantol 2014;40:758-66.   DOI
12 Rutkunas V, Ignatovic J. A technique to splint and verify the accuracy of implant impression copings with light-polymerizing acrylic resin. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:254-6.   DOI
13 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.
14 Flugge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:277-83.   DOI
15 Gherlone EF, Ferrini F, Crespi R, Gastaldi G, Cappare P. Digital impressions for fabrication of definitive "all-on-four" restorations. Implant Dent 2015;24:125-9.   DOI
16 Venezia P, Torsello F, Cavalcanti R, Casiello E, Chiapasco M. Digital registration of peri-implant transmucosal portion and pontic area in the esthetic zone. J Osseointegration 2017;9:312-6.
17 Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 2008;204:505-11.   DOI
18 Kohorst P, Brinkmann H, Li J, Borchers L, Stiesch M. Marginal accuracy of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses fabricated using different computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing systems. Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117:319-25.   DOI
19 Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:836-45.   DOI
20 Branemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:399-410.   DOI
21 Alikhasi M, Monzavi A, Bassir SH, Naini RB, Khosronedjad N, Keshavarz S. A comparison of precision of fit, rotational freedom, and torque loss with copy-milled zirconia and prefabricated titanium abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:996-1002.   DOI
22 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.
23 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.
24 Karl M, Taylor TD. Bone adaptation induced by non-passively fitting implant superstructures: A randomized clinical trial. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2016;31:369-75.   DOI
25 Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nystrom I, Ryden J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent 2018;69:110-8.   DOI
26 Semper W, Kraft S, Mehrhof J, Nelson K. Impact of abutment rotation and angulation on marginal fit: theoretical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:752-8.
27 Flugge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:277-83.   DOI
28 Papaspyridakos P, Benic GI, Hogsett VL, White GS, Lal K, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23:676-81.   DOI
29 Gintaute A. Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures of straight and tilted dental implants [Internet]. Freiburg; Albert-Ludwig Universitat; 2015. Available from: https://freidok.uni-freiburg.de/dnb/download/10655
30 Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, Tan YH, Tan KBC. Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: Effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:366-80.   DOI
31 Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: Effect of clinically relevant parameters. Implant Dent 2015;24:498-504.   DOI
32 Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Ozcan M, Pradies G. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthodont 2017;26:650-5.   DOI
33 Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016;47:343-9.
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