Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study

被引:37
作者
Tohme, Hani [1 ,4 ]
Lawand, Ghida [2 ]
Chmielewska, Maja [3 ]
Makhzoume, Joseph [1 ]
机构
[1] St Joseph Univ, Fac Dent Med, Dept Removable Prosthodont, Beirut, Lebanon
[2] St Joseph Univ, Fac Dent Med, Dept Prosthodont & Esthet Dent, Beirut, Lebanon
[3] Private practice, Gdansk, Poland
[4] St Joseph Univ, Dept Removable Prosthodont, Damascus St,BP 11-5076,Riad Solh, Beirut 11072180, Lebanon
关键词
MULTIPLE IMPLANTS; INTRAORAL SCANNER; EDENTULOUS PATIENTS; ACCURACY; PHOTOGRAMMETRY; PRECISION; TRUENESS; CASTS; TECHNOLOGY; STRATEGIES;
D O I
10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.006
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Statement of problem. Conventional impressions and digital intraoral scanning for implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses still have many problems that influence accuracy. Although stereophotogrammetry may offer a reliable alternative to other techniques, it has seldom been investigated.Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the intraoral scan body deviations of the reference cast with the intraoral scan body distortions obtained by conventional, digital, and stereophotogrammetric techniques.Materials and methods. An edentulous maxillary "all-on-four " cast was prepared with 2 straight and two 17-degree angled screw-retained abutments screwed on the implant. Three capture techniques were compared: the conventional impression technique (CI group) using impression plaster (IP), the digital intraoral scanning (DIS group) technique, and the stereophotogrammetry (SPG group) technique. A calibrated extraoral scanner was used to digitize the definitive cast to compare its intraoral scan body positions with those of the other techniques in terms of global angular distortion and 3D deviations of the whole scan body and flat angled surface alone by using an inspection and metrology software program and the best fit alignment technique. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests showed normal distribution of the quantitative variables. Thus, the repeated measures analyses of variance followed by univariate analysis and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were performed to analyze the data (a=.05).Results. Significant global angular discrepancies and 3D deviations of the whole scan body and flat angled surface were found among the CI, DI, and SPG groups for both trueness (P <.001) and precision (P <.001).Conclusions. The stereophotogrammetry capture technique reported the highest accuracy in terms of trueness and precision for the intraoral scan bodies of all the techniques evaluated. However, at the flat angled surface region of the scan body, higher trueness was detected with the digital technique. Conventional impressions showed better trueness results than the digital ones, but the opposite was true of precision.
引用
收藏
页码:354 / 362
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses
    Mizumoto, Ryan M.
    Yilmaz, Burak
    McGlumphy, Edwin A., Jr.
    Seidt, Jeremy
    Johnston, William M.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 123 (01) : 96 - 104
  • [2] Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch-fixed prosthesis: An in vitro study
    Kosago, Pitchaporn
    Ungurawasaporn, Chatcharwin
    Kukiattrakoon, Boonlert
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2023, 32 (07): : 616 - 624
  • [3] 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
  • [4] 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):
  • [5] A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: A randomized controlled pilot clinical
    Penarrocha-Diago, Maria
    Carlos Balaguer-Marti, Jose
    Penarrocha-Oltra, David
    Francisco Balaguer-Martinez, Jose
    Penarrocha-Diago, Miguel
    Agustin-Panadero, Ruben
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2017, 118 (05) : 596 - 603
  • [6] 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
  • [7] Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study
    Yan, Yuwei
    Lin, Xiao
    Yue, Xinxin
    Geng, Wei
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2023, 130 (04) : 564 - 572
  • [8] 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)
  • [9] AN IN VITRO COMPARISON OF PHOTOGRAMMETRIC AND CONVENTIONAL COMPLETE-ARCH IMPLANT IMPRESSION TECHNIQUES
    Bergin, Junping Ma
    Rubenstein, Jeffrey E.
    Mancl, Lloyd
    Brudvik, James S.
    Raigrodski, Ariel J.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2013, 110 (04) : 243 - 251
  • [10] Survival of 2039 complete arch fixed implant-supported zirconia prostheses: A retrospective study
    Bidra, Avinash S.
    Tischler, Michael
    Patch, Claudia
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2018, 119 (02) : 220 - 224