• 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 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.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.270-279
• /
• 2018

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the patients' perception, acceptance, and preference of the difference between a conventional impression and digital impression through questionnaire survey. Materials and Methods: Thirteen (6 male, 7 female) subjects who experienced both digital and conventional impression at the same day were enrolled in this study. Conventional impression were taken with polyvinylsiloxane and digital impression were performed using a newly developed intra-oral scanner. Immediately after the two impressions were made, a survey was conducted with the standardized questionnaires consisting of the following three categories; 1) general dental treatment 2) satisfaction of conventional impression 3) satisfaction of digital impression. The perceived source of satisfaction was evaluated using Likert scale. The distribution of the answers was assessed by percentages and statistical analyses were performed with the paired t-test, and P < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: There were significant differences of the overall satisfaction between two impression methods (P < 0.05). Digital impression showed high satisfaction in less shortness of breath and odor to participants compared to conventional impression. The use of an oral scanner resulted in a discomfort of TMJ due to prolonged mouth opening and in lower score of the scanner tip size. Conclusion: It was confirmed that the preference for the digital impression using intraoral scanner is higher than the conventional impression. Most survey participants said they would recommend the digital impression to others and said they preferred it for future prosthetic treatment.

• 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.

• Journal of Korean Dental Science
• /
• v.9 no.2
• /
• pp.74-80
• /
• 2016

Even though an immediate denture (ID) is a practical prosthesis, fabricating an ID may be challenging, as unexpected removals of periodontally compromised teeth may occur during an impression procedure. This clinical report introduces a digital approach to a maxillary ID. An intraoral scanner was applied to prevent accidental extraction. A physical cast and a resin pattern of a framework were fabricated with rapid prototyping technology. A proper border and retention was also achieved by an altered cast impression.

• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.52 no.6
• /
• pp.354-362
• /
• 2014

With the development of digital dentistry, various intra-oral scanners which acquire intraoral image without conventional impression taking and stone pouring steps have been introduced. Fixed dental prostheses such as inlay, onlay, crown, and bridge fabricated by CAD/CAM technique combined with digital impressions is getting popular due to the recent rapid progress of digital impression taking system. In comparison with traditional prosthetic procedure, the advantages of intraoral image acquiring and CAD/CAM technique are as follows; the omission of conventional impression materials, reduced workflow step, and increased efficiency by online communication with clinic and laboratory. This review article covers some opinions about the suitable scanning procedures for the various prosthodontic treatments and the utilization of digital intraoral scanner and CAD/CAM system.

• Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.33-44
• /
• 2019

Objectives: To investigate how dental hygienists who have never used a digital oral scanner perceive the impression acquisition and evidence needed for prosthesis planning by using a digital oral scanner. Methods: From July 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017, subjects from Daegu, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Korea, were selected. The purpose of the study was described to dental hygienists who had never used a digital intraoral scanner. Questionnaires were distributed to the students selected. Of the 137 questionnaires distributed, 93 were used in the analysis after excluding 44 completed questionnaires that had errors or missing answers. Results: Of the respondents, 33.7% (36/93) were aged ${\geq}30$ years, 68.8% graduated from a 3-year vocational college course, 33.5% were aged ${\geq}33$ years, and 61.3%. At present, our center has the largest number of clinics (92.5%). The difficulty of impression taking using the digital oral scanner significantly differed (p<0.05) according to age and current occupation (p<0.05). Impression taking using a digital oral scanner significantly affected the present workflow of dental hygienists and their interest in sharing information about future use of digital oral scanner (p<0.01). Conclusions: If more routes are available to access digital intraoral scanners and more systems are developed for clinical use, the digital intraoral scanner could become digitized in the dental system; thereby, the existing impressions could be replaced with digitized impressions. With digital intraoral scanners, the expansion of the business of dental hygiene can be expected.

• Journal of Technologic Dentistry
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.121-128
• /
• 2012

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability and accuracy of measurements in digital models(CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC) compared to stone models. Methods: A master model(500B-1, Nissin Dental Product, Japan) 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 CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC intra-oral scanner(n=10). One examiner measured two times the intercanine, intermolar distance, dental arch length. The stone model were measured using a digital caliper. The t-student test for paired samples and intraclass correlation coefficient(ICC) were used for statistical analysis. Results: The measurement of two methods showed very good reliability. At the intra-examiner reliability of measurement, ICC at the stone and CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC model were 0.81 and 0.94. The mean difference between measurements made directly on the stone models and those made on the CEREC$^{(R)}$ AC model was 0.20~0.28mm, and was statistically significant(P=0.001). Conclusion: These in vitro studies show that accuracy of the digital impression is similar to that of the conventional impression. These results will have to be confirmed in further clinical studies.

• 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 Advanced Prosthodontics
• /
• v.13 no.6
• /
• pp.361-372
• /
• 2021

PURPOSE. To improve the clinical effects of complete denture use and simplify its clinical application, a digital complete denture restoration workflow (Functional Suitable Digital Complete Denture System, FSD) was proposed and preliminary clinical evaluation was done. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Forty edentulous patients were enrolled, of which half were treated by a prosthodontic chief physician, and the others were treated by a postgraduate student. Based on the primary impression and jaw relation obtained at the first visit, diagnostic denture was designed and printed to create a definitive impression, jaw relation, and esthetic confirmation at the second visit. A redesigned complete denture was printed as a mold to fabricate final denture that was delivered at the third visit. To evaluate accuracy of impression made by diagnostic denture, the final denture was used as a tray to make impression, and 3D comparison was used to analyze their difference. To evaluate the clinical effect of FSD, visual analogue scores (VAS) were determined by both dentists and patients. RESULTS. Two visits were reduced before denture delivery. The RMS values of 3D comparison between the impression made via diagnostic dentures and the final dentures were 0.165 ± 0.033 mm in the upper jaw and 0.139 ± 0.031 mm in the lower jaw. VAS ratings were between 8.5 and 9.6 in the chief physician group, while 7.7 and 9.5 in the student group; there was no statistical difference between the two groups. CONCLUSION. FSD can simplify the complete denture restoration process and reduce the number of visits. The accuracy of impressions made by diagnostic dentures was acceptable in clinic. The VASs of both dentists and patients were satisfied.