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
  • [21] Conventional and digital complete arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy
    Gomez-Polo, Miguel
    Sallorenzo, Alessandro
    Cascos, Rocio
    Ballesteros, Juan
    Barmak, Abdul B.
    Revilla-Leon, Marta
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 132 (04): : 809 - 818
  • [22] Guided implant scanning: A procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses
    Gomez-Polo, Miguel
    Ballesteros, Juan
    Perales-Padilla, Pedro
    Perales-Pulido, Pedro
    Gomez-Polo, Cristina
    Ortega, Rocio
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 124 (02): : 135 - 139
  • [23] A Mandibular Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dental Prosthesis in a Patient With Sjogren Syndrome: Case Report
    Spinato, Sergio
    Soardi, Carlo Maria
    Zane, Anna Maria
    IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2010, 19 (03) : 178 - 183
  • [24] Rescue of an implant-supported fixed complete prosthesis after the failure of an implant: A dental technique
    Yilmaz, Burak
    Schimmel, Martin
    McGlumphy, Edwin
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 123 (03): : 398 - 402
  • [25] In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings
    Conejo, Julian
    Yoo, Thomas H.
    Atria, Pablo J.
    Fraiman, Howard
    Blatz, Markus B.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 131 (03): : 475e1 - 475e7
  • [26] Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study
    Fu, Xiao-Jiao
    Liu, Min
    Liu, Bei-Lei
    Tonetti, Maurizio S.
    Shi, Jun-Yu
    Lai, Hong-Chang
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (08) : 830 - 840
  • [27] Replacement of a mandibular implant-fixed prosthesis with an implant-supported overdenture to improve maintenance and care
    Matsuda, Ken-ichi
    Kurushima, Yuko
    Enoki, Kaori
    Ikebe, Kazunori
    Maeda, Yoshinobu
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTIC RESEARCH, 2014, 58 (02) : 132 - 136
  • [28] CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF DIGITAL AND CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR THE FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED PROSTHESES
    Waleed, Al Qahtani
    Rami, M. Galal
    Ghada, E. Hamza
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL DENTISTRY, 2019, 23 (02) : 267 - 271
  • [29] A Comparison Between Fixed and Removable Mandibular Implant-Supported Full-Arch Prostheses: An Overview of Systematic Reviews
    Tsigarida, Alexandra
    Chochlidakis, Konstantinos
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2021, 34 : S85 - S92
  • [30] In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses
    Bilmenoglu, Caglar
    Cilingir, Altug
    Geckili, Onur
    Bilhan, Hakan
    Bilgin, Tayfun
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 124 (06): : 755 - 760