• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.11 no.5
• /
• pp.271-279
• /
• 2019

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.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.3
• /
• pp.238-244
• /
• 2019

Soft liner is used to functional impression technique when dental stone is immediately poured after taking impression because of viscoelasticity. In this case, a 78-year-old male visited for new dentures. Due to severe resorption of mandibular edentulous ridge, functional impression taking by closed mouth technique was planned. First of all, making maxillary and mandibular provisional dentures was done, and lined by soft liner to rehabilitate pressured maxillary and mandibular edentulous ridge. After this, Functional impression was taken by closed mouth technique using provisional dentures which are transformed to healed maxillary and mandibular edentulous ridge, and final denture were fabricated using maxillary provisional denture as a reference of artificial teeth arrangement. Consequently, restoring a complete edentulous patient with taking functional impression using provisional dentures resulted in recovering satisfying retention and function.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.1-7
• /
• 2014

PURPOSE. The accuracy of a gypsum model (GM), which was taken using a conventional silicone impression technique, was compared with that of a polyurethane model (PM), which was taken using an iTero$^{TM}$ digital impression system. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The maxillary first molar artificial tooth was selected as the reference tooth. The GMs were fabricated through a silicone impression of a reference tooth, and PMs were fabricated by a digital impression (n=9, in each group). The reference tooth and experimental models were scanned using a 3 shape convince$^{TM}$ scan system. Each GM and PM image was superimposed on the registered reference model (RM) and 2D images were obtained. The discrepancies of the points registered on the superimposed images were measured and defined as GM-RM group and PM-RM group. Statistical analysis was performed using a Student's T-test (${\alpha}=0.05$). RESULTS. A comparison of the absolute value of the discrepancy revealed a significant difference between the two groups only at the occlusal surface. The GM group showed a smaller mean discrepancy than the PM group. Significant differences in the GM-RM group and PM-RM group were observed in the margins (point a and f), mesial mid-axial wall (point b) and occlusal surfaces (point c and d). CONCLUSION. Under the conditions examined, the digitally fabricated polyurethane model showed a tendency for a reduced size in the margin than the reference tooth. The conventional gypsum model showed a smaller discrepancy on the occlusal surface than the polyurethane model.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.323-337
• /
• 2010

The objective of this study was to examine the availability of the new impression coping by comparing with conventional coping in implant pick-up impression technique. Five implant fixtures were installed on #14, 21, 23, 25, 27 in acrylic resin model. That model with 5 fixtures was standard model, which was divided 3 groups; using new flag type impression coping, conventional impression coping splinted with self-curing resin, conventional impression coping without splinting. We made metal circular cones for calculation 3-dimensional coordinates by attaching to implant fixtures or analogs. Three-dimensional relationships of each model were calculated. Data was analyzed by multiple ANOVA and Bonferroni. The accuracy of impression between using new flag type impression coping and conventional impression coping did not show differences in 3 - dimensional analysis.Within limitations of this study, the new flag type impression coping is available in implant pick-up impression technique.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.42 no.1
• /
• pp.17-25
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of definitive casts that are fabricated from digital intraoral impression and conventional impression technique. Methods: A master model(ANNA-4, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with the prepared upper full arch tooth was used. Conventional impression and then stone model(n=10) were produced from this master model, and on the other hands, digital impressions were made with the CS-3600 intraoral scanner(n=10). Six linear measurements were recorded between landmarks, directly on each of the stone models on two occasions by a single examiner. Measurements were made with a digital caliper to the nearest 0.01mm from manual models and with the software(Delcam PowerSHAPE) from the virtual models. The t-student test for paired samples and intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) were used for statistical analysis. Results: The measurement of two methods showed good reliability. The ICC of the two models were 0.88~0.91(stone model) and 0.94~0.99(digital model). The mean differences to master model for stone model and digital model were 0.10~0.14mm, and 0.14~0.20mm, respectively. Conclusion: The definitive casts obtained with digital intraoral technique model had significantly larger dimensions as compared to those of the stone model. However, the differences to the master model detected appear to provide enough accuracy and reliability for clinical application.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.16 no.1
• /
• pp.57-65
• /
• 2024

PURPOSE. The aim of this stuldy was to compare the clinical marginal fit of CAD-CAM inlays obtained from intraoral digital impression or addition silicone impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The study included 31 inlays for prosthodontics purposes of 31 patients: 15 based on intraoral digital impressions (DI group); and 16 based on a conventional impression technique (CI group). Inlays included occlusal and a non-occlusal surface. Inlays were milled in ceramic. The inlay-teeth interface was replicated by placing each inlay in its corresponding uncemented clinical preparation and taking interface impressions with silicone material from occlusal and free surfaces. Interface analysis was made using white light confocal microscopy (WLCM) (scanning area: 694 × 510 ㎛²) from the impression samples. The gap size and the inlay overextension were measured from the microscopy topographies. For analytical purposes (i.e., 95-%-confidence intervals calculations and P-value calculations), the procedure REGRESS in SUDAAN was used to account for clustering (i.e., multiple measurements). For p-value calculation, the log transformation of the dependent variables was used to normalize the distributions. RESULTS. Marginal fit values for occlusal and free surfaces were affected by the type of impression. There were no differences between surfaces (occlusal vs. free). Gap obtained for DI group was 164 ± 84 ㎛ and that for CI group was 209 ± 104 ㎛, and there were statistical differences between them (p = .041). Mean overextension values were 60 ± 59 ㎛ for DI group and 67 ± 73 ㎛ for CI group, and there were no differences between then (p = .553). CONCLUSION. Digital impression achieved inlays with higher clinical marginal fit and performed better than the conventional silicone materials.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.59 no.3
• /
• pp.261-270
• /
• 2021

Purpose. The aim of this study was (1) to compare the reverse engineering technique with other existing measurement methods and (2) to analyze the effect of implant angulations and impression coping types on implant impression accuracy with reverse engineering technique. Materials and methods. Three different master models were fabricated and the distance between the two implant center points in parallel master model was measured with different three methods; digital caliper measurement (Group DC), optical measuring (Group OM), and reverse engineering technique (Group RE). The 90 experimental models were fabricated with three types of impression copings for the three different implant angulation and the angular and distance error rate were calculated. One-way ANOVA was used for comparison among the evaluation methods (P < .05). The error rates of experimental groups were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (P < .05). Results. While there was significant difference between Group DC and RE (P < .05), Group OM had no significant difference compared with other groups (P > .05). The standard deviations in reverse engineering were much lower than those of digital caliper and optical measurement. Hybrid groups had no significant difference from the pick-up groups in distance error rates (P > .05). Conclusion. The reverse engineering technique demonstrated its potential as an evaluation technique of 3D accuracy of impression techniques.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.58 no.2
• /
• pp.94-102
• /
• 2020

The form and location of chin is very important factor which determine the facial impression. Genioplasty is getting popular in order to improve the facial impression as facial beauty is considered as improvable factor. Through the geniplasty, chin can be moved to wanted location 3 dimensionally Genioplasty is relative simple but precise diagnosis and accurate surgical technique is very important for accurate and satisfying results. The form and shape of chin itself can be analysized and also must be evalulated in relation to the nose and lip and face. Author introduces the analysis of the chin, various surgical techniques of genioplasty and presents some cases.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.236-249
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. The present study compared the accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The experimental models were divided into six groups depending on the implant location and the scanning span. Digital impressions were captured using the intraoral optical scanner TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Conventional impressions were taken with the monophase impression material based on addition-cured silicones, Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A high-precision laboratory scanner D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to obtain digital data of resin models and stone casts. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from scanner were imported into the analysis software Geomagic Qualify 14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and scan body deviations were determined through two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses. Each scan body was measured five times. The Sidak t test was used to analyze the experimental data. RESULTS. Implant position and scanning distance affected the impression accuracy. For a unilateral arch implant and the mandible models with two implants, no significant difference was observed in the accuracy between the digital and conventional implant impressions on scan bodies; however, the corresponding differences for trans-arch implants and mandible with six implants were extremely significant (P<.001). CONCLUSION. For short-span scanning, the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions did not differ significantly. For long-span scanning, the precision of digital impressions was significantly inferior to that of the traditional impressions.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.46 no.2
• /
• pp.201-208
• /
• 2008

Statement of problem: A new implant impression technique which use abutments as impression coping, and use resin cement as a splinting material was described. Accuracy of this technique was compared with conventional closed tray and resin splinted open tray technique for a $15^{\circ}$ angled 3-implant model Material and methods: A dental stone master model with 3 linearly positioned implant analogue and a reference framework which was passively fitted to it were fabricated. The center analogue was perpendicular to the plane of model and the outer analogues had a $15^{\circ}$angulation forward or backward. 10 closed tray impressions, 10 resin splinted open tray impressions, 10 abutment-resin framework cementation impressions and 10 abutment-metal framework cementation impressions were made with additional silicone material and poured with dental stone. A light microscope with image processing was used to record the vertical gap dimension between reference framework and analogue of duplicated cast made with each 4 impression techniques. Statistical analysis used one-way ANOVA with post-hoc tests Tukey test of .05 level of significance Results: Significant difference in the vertical gap dimension was found between closed tray technique; 74.3 (${\pm}33.4$)${\mu}m$ and resin splinted open tray technique, and two other new technique. (P<.05) Abutment-metal framework cementation technique;42.5 (${\pm}11.9$)${\mu}m$ was significantly different from resin splinted open tray technique. (P<.05) Abutmentresin framework cementation technique;51.0 (${\pm}14.1$)${\mu}m$ did not differ significantly from resin splinted open tray technique;50.3 (${\pm}16.9$)${\mu}m$. (P>.05) Conclusion: Within limitations of this study, the accuracy of implant level impressions of resin splinted open tray technique was superior to that of closed tray technique. A new technique using abutment and metal framework cementation was more accurate than resin splinted open tray technique.