• 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.53 no.3
• /
• pp.234-243
• /
• 2015

Developing of digital technique, it is possible to fabricate implant prostheses for edentulous area using intraoral 3-dimentional information throughout implant diagnosis and treatment process. It is being changed that from the method using CAD/CAM, producing prostheses by model scanning after conventional impression and model processing, to the method of fabricating implant provisional restorations and customized abutments by digital impression after connecting digital impression copings (scanbody) and implant fixtures without models. But, this digital method has not been actively used for implant prostheses not yet. Specially, it is short of intraoral digital impression cases for immediate provisional restorations of the maxillary anterior implants. The gingival contour impression of maxillary anterior area is very important for esthetic restorations. Accordingly, in this case report, the using a digital impression coping (scanbody) and digital impression by CEREC Omnicam (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) or Trios (3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) were introduced for immediate provisional restorations in 3 cases needed a single implant restoration in maxillary anterior area. The clinical results were satisfactory on the convenience and accuracy of digital impression technique and the good esthetics of final restorations.

• 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 Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.15 no.4
• /
• pp.179-188
• /
• 2023

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0°, 5°, 0°, 0°, 15°, and 0° in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured. RESULTS. While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 ㎛, the values of 104 ㎛ and 171 ㎛ were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively (P = .001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners (P < .001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185°, the values of 0.499° and 1.250° were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values (P > .05). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group.

• The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.14 no.4
• /
• pp.212-222
• /
• 2022

PURPOSE. To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed completearch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS. 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction (P<.05). RESULTS. The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, $\tilde{x}=02:58$; CI, $\tilde{x}=31:48$) (P<.0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: $\tilde{x}=05:36$; 4: $\tilde{x}=09:16$) (P<.0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI (P<.005). CONCLUSION. Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.539-549
• /
• 1995

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of 3 implant impression methods by using strain gauge. The models used for this study were partially edentulous mandibular acrylic resin casts Model A, with two abutment analogs in #46,47 extraction site, represented two implant parallel to to the adjacent natural tooth. Model B represent an anterior implant parallel to the adjacene natural tooth and a posterior implant exhibiting a 15-degree lingual inclination. Master framework were fabricated on the master model, and 3 strain gauges were attached to a master framwork to determine the passivity of fit of the framework to sample casts made by the three impression techniques. The master framework was attached to each sample cast with gold screws, which were tightened with the torque driver to ensure a consistent toque application of 10 Ncm. Universal Digital Measuring System UCAM-5BT was used for strain measuring. Impression techniques studid were : 1. unsplinted tapered impression coping, polyvinyl siloxane, stock tray 2. unsplinted squared impression coping, polyether, custom tray 3. squared impression coping splinted with Duralay resin, polyether, custom tray Through analysis on data from this study, the following conclusions were obtained. 1. There were no statistically significant differences between the mean strain recorded from the sample casts made with the tree impression. But only strain values of model A(parallel group) Y-axis was signifcantly differed between Technique 1 and 3(P<0.05). 2. There was no statistically significant difference between model A(parallel group) and model B(15-degree divergent group).

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.57 no.4
• /
• pp.432-438
• /
• 2019

Accurate impression taking for the success of implant prosthesis is a very important process. Methods of taking implant impression include the conventional method using impression coping and impression material, and the digital method using an intraoral scanner and scanbody. However, the impression coping or the scanbody must install after remove healing abutment. Because of this, the dentist must repeat the process of removing and installing the healing abutment, the impression coping or the scanbody several times. In addition, the impression coping or the scanbody rises higher than the occlusal surface, so the patient has the inconvenience of constantly maintaining the open state. Recently, a scannable healing abutment, which can be scanned by a intraoral scanner directly, without the need to remove the healing abutment by applying a scannable part of the scanbody to the healing abutment, was introduced. We present a case of single posterior implant prosthesis using a scannable healing abutment.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.33 no.4
• /
• pp.299-306
• /
• 2017

In this case report, immediate loading of an implant-supported single-tooth prosthesis through complete digital workflow. A patient presented for restoration of missing a single tooth in the mandibular first molar. The digital impression was made with intraoral scanner and implant was placed using surgical guide pre-fabricated with pre-operative computed tomography (CT) and scan data. After 1 week later, prefabricated customized abutment and provisional restoration were connected for immediate loading. After 8 weeks later, abutment level impression was taken by intraoral scanner. At 3 months later from implant installation, monolithic zirconia crown were fabricated. This clinical report presents satisfying result in accuracy and patient satisfaction. A completely modeless digital procedure met expectations regarding precision, esthetics, and functionality.

• The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics
• /
• v.59 no.1
• /
• pp.79-87
• /
• 2021

The digital workflow of optical impressions by the intraoral scanner and CADCAM manufacture of dental prostheses is actively developing. The complex process of traditional impression taking, definite cast fabrication, wax pattern making, and casting has been shortened, and the number of patient's visits can also be reduced. Advances in intraoral scanner technology have increased the precision and accuracy of optical impression, and its indication is progressively widened toward the long span fixed dental prosthesis. This case report describes the long span implant case, and the operator fully utilized digital workflow such as computer-guided implant surgical template and CAD-CAM produced restoration after the digital impression. The provisional restoration and customized abutments were prepared with the optical impression taken on the same day of implant surgery. Moreover, the final prosthesis was fabricated with the digital scan while utilizing the same customized abutment from the provisional restoration. During the data acquisition step, stl data of customized abutments, previously scanned at the time of provisional restoration delivery, were imported and automatically aligned with digital impression data using an 'A.I. abutment matching algorithm' the intraoral scanner software. By using this algorithm, it was possible to obtain the subgingival margin without the gingival retraction or abutment removal. Using the digital intraoral scanner's advanced functions, the operator could shorten the total treatment time. So that both the patient and the clinician could experience convenient and effective treatment, and it was possible to manufacture a prosthesis with predictability.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.36 no.1
• /
• pp.29-40
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of impression taking method using the encoded healing abutment, scan body and pick-up impression coping with different implant angulations. Materials and Methods: Master model was fabricated by 3D printer and three implants were placed into the model with 0°, 10° and 20° mesial angulation. The abutments were secured to each implants and master model was scanned to make a reference model. Group P model was fabricated using pick-up impression copings and model was scanned after securing the abutments. Encoded healing abutment (Group E) and scan body (Group S) were secured on the master model and digital impression was taken using intraoral scanner 15 times each. Each STL files of test groups were superimposed with reference model using best fit alignment and root mean square (RMS) value was analyzed. Results: The RMS values were lowest in Group P, followed by Group S and Group E. Group P showed significant difference with Group S and E (P < 0.05) while there was no significant difference between Group S and E. Correlation between implant angulation and RMS value was significant in Group E (P < 0.05). Conclusion: The pick-up impression coping method showed higher accuracy and there was no significant difference in accuracy between the healing abutment and the scan body. The clinical use of the encoded healing abutment is possible, but it should be used with caution in the case of angulated implant.