Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

被引:10
作者
Ma, Yun [1 ,2 ]
Guo, Yong-qing [3 ,4 ]
Jiang, Lei [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ]
Yu, Hao [1 ,2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Fujian Med Univ, Fujian Key Lab Oral Dis, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[2] Fujian Med Univ, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Fujian Prov Engn Res Ctr Oral Biomat & Stomatol Ke, Fujian Coll & Univ, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[3] Fujian Med Univ, Dept Prosthodont, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[4] Fujian Med Univ, Res Ctr Dent Esthet & Biomech, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[5] Nagasaki Univ, Grad Sch Biomed Sci, Dept Appl Prosthodont, Nagasaki, Japan
[6] Fujian Med Univ, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Dept Prosthodont, Yangqiao Zhong Rd 246, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
关键词
Accuracy; Intraoral conditions; Dental implant; Dental impression technique; Intraoral scanner; IN-VIVO PRECISION; 3-DIMENSIONAL ACCURACY; IMPACT; VITRO;
D O I
10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_22_00242
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: To compare the trueness and precision of different impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses between extraoral and intraoral conditions at different locations.Methods: Six volunteers participated in this study. A resin block with two parallel analogs was fabricated as an implant site simulator (ISS). The ISS was bonded to a molded ethylene vinyl acetate sheet to create a reference model. For each participant, four reference models were prepared based on the locations of the ISSs: maxillary posterior/anterior region (MaxP/MaxA) and mandibular posterior/anterior region (ManP/ManA). Five impressions were taken extraorally using the open-tray (conventional implant impression technique, CIT) and intraoral scanning (digital implant impression technique, DIT) techniques. The reference models were positioned in the participants' mouths, and impressions were obtained intraorally using the CIT and DIT. The interanalog distance (d) and angulation (theta) were measured to calculate trueness (Delta d, Delta theta) and precision (dP, theta P). Two-way ANOVA and t tests were performed (alpha=0.05).Results: For the DIT, under intraoral conditions, the Delta d and Delta theta in MaxP and Delta theta in ManP were significantly higher than those under extraoral conditions. For the CIT, under intraoral conditions, the Delta d and Delta theta in ManA and ManP and Delta theta in MaxP were significantly lower than those under extraoral conditions. No significant differences in the dP and theta P of either DIT or CIT were observed between the two conditions.Conclusions: Intraoral conditions affected the trueness of DIT and CIT in different regions but had no influence on precision.
引用
收藏
页码:633 / 640
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Evaluation of marginal/internal fit of fixed dental prostheses after digital, conventional, and combination impression techniques: A systematic review
    Sarafidou, Katia
    Chatziparaskeva, Maria
    Chatzikamagiannis, Dimitrios
    Mpotskaris, Vasileios
    Tortopidis, Dimitrios
    Bakopoulou, Athina
    Kokoti, Maria
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCES, 2022, 130 (06)
  • [22] 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
  • [23] 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):
  • [24] Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions
    Rutkunas, Vygandas
    Gedrimiene, Agne
    Adaskevicius, Rimas
    Husain, Nadin Al-Haj
    Ozcan, Mutlu
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2020, 28 (04) : 173 - 181
  • [25] Investigation of the Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners in Mandibular Full-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Comparative In Vitro Study
    Di Fiore, Adolfo
    Graiff, Lorenzo
    Savio, Gianpaolo
    Granata, Stefano
    Basilicata, Michele
    Bollero, Patrizio
    Meneghello, Roberto
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 19 (08)
  • [26] A clinical study comparing digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A crossover clinical trial
    Lee, Sang J.
    Jamjoom, Faris Z.
    Le, Thao
    Radics, Andreas
    Gallucci, German O.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2022, 128 (01) : 42 - 48
  • [27] Comparison of photogrammetric imaging, intraoral scanning and conventional impression accuracy of full-arch dental implant rehabilitation: an in vitro study
    Kailibinuer Abuduwaili
    Ruoxuan Huang
    Jiaying Song
    Yuanxiang Liu
    Zhuofan Chen
    Baoxin Huang
    Zhipeng Li
    BMC Oral Health, 25 (1)
  • [28] Evaluation of the Accuracy of Intraoral Digital Impression Systems and CAD and CAM Workflows for Fabricating Dental Prostheses
    Gajbhiye, Ojas Anand
    Reddy, M. Pradeep
    Imran, Md.
    Narayanan, Nikhita
    Gangadharappa, Praveen
    Dewan, Harisha
    JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND BIOALLIED SCIENCES, 2024, 16 (SUPPL 4) : S3734 - S3736
  • [29] Partially digital workflow for making complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A dental technique
    Pereira, Ana Larisse Carneiro
    Campos, Maria de Fatima Trindade Pinto
    Freitas, Rodrigo Falcao Carvalho Porto de
    Torres, Ana Clara Soares Paiva
    Gomes, Jessica Marcela de Luna
    Pellizzer, Eduardo Piza
    Carreiro, Adriana da Fonte Porto
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2023, 129 (01) : 18 - 23
  • [30] Evaluation of the Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Implant Impression Techniques in Two Simulated Clinical Conditions by Optical Scanning
    Sabouhi, Mahmoud
    Bajoghli, Farshad
    Abolhasani, Majid
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2015, 30 (01) : 26 - 34