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

被引:9
|
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] In Vitro Comparison of Three Intraoral Scanners for Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses
    Costa, Vitoria
    Silva, Antonio Sergio
    Costa, Rosana
    Barreiros, Pedro
    Mendes, Joana
    Mendes, Jose Manuel
    DENTISTRY JOURNAL, 2022, 10 (06)
  • [22] Influence of CAD/CAM on the fit accuracy of implant-supported zirconia and cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses
    Gonzaga, Danilo
    Morals, Maria Helena S. T.
    das Neves, Flavio D.
    Barbosa, Gustavo A. S.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2015, 113 (01): : 22 - 28
  • [23] Accuracy of intraoral scanning using modified scan bodies for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses
    Li, Yanxi
    Fang, He
    Yan, Yuwei
    Geng, Wei
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 132 (05): : 994e1 - 994e8
  • [24] Intraoral digital impression for fabricating a replica of an implant-supported interim prosthesis
    Lee, Ju-Hyoung
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2016, 115 (02): : 145 - 149
  • [25] 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)
  • [26] Influence of Implant Impression Methods, Polymer Materials, and Implant Angulation on the Accuracy of Dental Models
    Djurovic Koprivica, Daniela
    Puskar, Tatjana
    Budak, Igor
    Sokac, Mario
    Jeremic Knezevic, Milica
    Maletin, Aleksandra
    Milekic, Bojana
    Vukelic, Djordje
    POLYMERS, 2022, 14 (14)
  • [27] Retention of titanium copings to implant-supported fixed dental prostheses
    Chiam, Sieu Yien
    Lee, Hsin Lin
    Bedrossian, Armand E.
    Xu, Qianhui
    Kuykendall, William
    Ren, Anna
    Hess, Timothy A.
    Ramos Jr, Van
    Chung, Kwok-Hung
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2024, 33 (04): : 340 - 347
  • [28] Fracture analysis of randomized implant-supported fixed dental prostheses
    Esquivel-Upshaw, Josephine F.
    Mehler, Alex
    Clark, Arthur E.
    Neal, Dan
    Anusavice, Kenneth J.
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2014, 42 (10) : 1335 - 1342
  • [29] In Vitro Comparison of the Accuracy of Conventional Impression and Four Intraoral Scanners in Four Different Implant Impression Scenarios
    Alpkilic, Dilara Seyma
    Deger, Sabire Isler
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2022, 37 (01) : 39 - 48
  • [30] Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses
    Takeuchi, Yoshimasa
    Koizumi, Hiroyasu
    Furuchi, Mika
    Sato, Yohei
    Ohkubo, Chikahiro
    Matsumura, Hideo
    JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCE, 2018, 60 (01) : 1 - 7