Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: An in vitro study

被引:10
|
作者
Kosago, Pitchaporn [1 ]
Ungurawasaporn, Chatcharwin [1 ]
Kukiattrakoon, Boonlert [1 ]
机构
[1] Prince Songkla Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Conservat Dent, Hat Yai, Thailand
关键词
accuracy; digital impression; intraoral scanners; stereophotogrammetry; INTRAORAL SCANNERS; 3-DIMENSIONAL ACCURACY; MISFIT;
D O I
10.1111/jopr.13604
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose This in vitro study compared the accuracy between conventional and different intraoral scanner impression methods and stereophotogrammetry term of 3D deviation for a complete mandibular edentulous arch with 5 placed implants. Materials and methods An edentulous mandibular model was prepared with three straight and two 17 degrees angled screw-retained abutments screwed on implants. Different impression techniques were compared: one conventional impression, CO (open-tray splint impression coping, Polyether), three groups of intraoral scanners, TS (Trios 4), IT (iTero Element 2), and PS (Primescan), and one stereophotogrammetry, PIC (Precise Implants Capture). An extraoral scanner (E4 scanner) was used to digitize the reference model as a control group. Scan body positions were compared with 3D deviation by using a 3D analysis software program (Geomagic ControlX 2020.1.1) with the best-fit alignment technique. The accuracy of the scan bodies' position of each impression technique between each group area was analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe's comparison test for trueness and precision. (alpha = 0.05). Results Statistical 3D deviations of the whole scan body were found among the CO, TS, PS, IT, and PIC groups for both trueness (p < 0.05) and precision (p < 0.05). PIC showed the least 3D deviation of trueness (48.74 +/- 1.80 mu m) and precision (5.46 +/- 1.10 mu m), followed by TS, PS, IT, and CO. CO had the highest 3D deviation of trueness (141 +/- 5.58 mu m) and precision (40.4 +/- 1.3.39 mu m), which was significantly different from PIC, TS, and PS. Conclusions For completed-arch digital implant impressions, stereophotogrammetry has shown better accuracy than other digital and conventional impression techniques, especially in terms of precision. The highest 3D deviation was found in the conventional splint open-tray impression technique.
引用
收藏
页码:616 / 624
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study
    Drancourt, Noemie
    Auduc, Chantal
    Mouget, Aymeric
    Mouminoux, Jean
    Auroy, Pascal
    Veyrune, Jean-Luc
    El Osta, Nada
    Nicolas, Emmanuel
    JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2023, 13 (05):
  • [2] In Vitro Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses
    D'haese, Rani
    Vrombaut, Tom
    Roeykens, Herman
    Vandeweghe, Stefan
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2022, 11 (03)
  • [3] Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study
    Tohme, Hani
    Lawand, Ghida
    Chmielewska, Maja
    Makhzoume, Joseph
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2023, 129 (02): : 354 - 362
  • [4] Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-An in vitro study
    Iturrate, Mikel
    Eguiraun, Harkaitz
    Solaberrieta, Eneko
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2019, 30 (12) : 1250 - 1258
  • [5] Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction
    Pereira, Ana Larisse Carneiro
    Medeiros, Vitoria Ramos
    Campos, Maria de Fatima Trindade Pinto
    de Medeiros, Annie Karoline Bezerra
    Yilmaz, Burak
    Carreiro, Adriana da Fonte Porto
    JOURNAL OF ADVANCED PROSTHODONTICS, 2022, 14 (04): : 212 - 222
  • [6] Conventional and Digital Impressions for Fabrication of Complete Implant-Supported Bars: A Comparative In Vitro Study
    Vieira, Samanta N. V.
    Lourenco, Matheus F.
    Pereira, Rodrigo C.
    Franca, Esdras C.
    Vilaca, Enio L.
    Silveira, Rodrigo R.
    Silva, Guilherme C.
    MATERIALS, 2023, 16 (11)
  • [7] Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device
    Arikan, Hale
    Muhtarogullari, Mehmet
    Uzel, Sema Merve
    Guncu, Mustafa Baris
    Aktas, Guliz
    Marshall, Lindsay Simone
    Turkyilmaz, Ilser
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 2023, 18 (02) : 808 - 813
  • [8] Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative clinical study
    Zhang, Yi-Jie
    Qian, Shu-Jiao
    Lai, Hong-Chang
    Shi, Jun-Yu
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2023, 130 (02): : 212 - 218
  • [9] Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study
    Shaikh, Mohsin
    Lakha, Tabrez
    Kheur, Supriya
    Qamri, Batul
    Kheur, Mohit
    THE JOURNAL OF INDIAN PROSTHODONTIC SOCIETY, 2022, 22 (04) : 398 - 404
  • [10] Accuracy of 3 Intraoral Scanners in Recording Impressions for Full Arch Dental Implant-Supported Prosthesis: An In Vitro Study
    Jain, Saurabh
    Sayed, Mohammed E.
    Khawaji, Reem Abdullah A.
    Hakami, Ghada Ali J.
    Solan, Eman Hassan M.
    Daish, Manal A.
    Jokhadar, Hossam F.
    Alresayes, Saad Saleh
    Altoman, Majed S.
    Alshehri, Abdullah Hasan
    Alqahtani, Saeed M.
    Alamri, Mohammad
    Alshahrani, Ahid Amer
    Al-najjar, Hind Ziyad
    Mattoo, Khurshid
    MEDICAL SCIENCE MONITOR, 2024, 30