Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison

被引:32
|
作者
Muhlemann, Sven [1 ]
Greter, Elena A. [1 ]
Park, Ji-Man [2 ]
Hammerle, Christoph H. F. [1 ]
Thoma, Daniel S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Clin Fixed & Removable Prosthodont & Dent Mat Sc, Ctr Dent Med, Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Yonsei Univ, Coll Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Seoul, South Korea
关键词
UNDERSTANDING DENTAL CAD/CAM; ENGINEERING VIEWPOINT. PART; MILLING MACHINES; IMPRESSIONS; ACCURACY; RESTORATIONS; WORKFLOW; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1111/clr.13349
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
ObjectiveTo calculate the precision of the implant analog position in digital models generated from different computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems compared to gypsum models acquired from conventional implant impressions. Materials and methodsIn five patients in need of a single implant crown, a within-subject comparison was performed applying four different manufacturing processes for the implant model. Each implant was scanned with three different intraoral scanners: iTero Cadent (ITE), Lava True Definition (LTD), and Trios 3Shape (TRI). All digital implant models were fabricated using the corresponding certified CAD-CAM workflow. In addition, a conventional impression was taken (CON) and a gypsum model fabricated. Three consecutive impressions were acquired with each impression system. Following fabrication, all implant models were scanned. The datasets were aligned by a repeated best-fit algorithm and the precision for the implant analog and the adjacent teeth was measured. The precision served as a measure for reproducibility. ResultsMean precision values of the implant analog in the digital models were 57.232.6 mu m (ITE), 88.6 +/- 46.0 mu m (TRI), and 176.7 +/- 120.4 mu m (LTD). Group CON (32.7 +/- 11.6 mu m) demonstrated a statistically significantly lower mean precision value for the implant position in the implant model as compared to all other groups representing a high reproducibility. The mean precision values for the reference ranged between 31.4 +/- 3.5 mu m (TRI) and 39.5 +/- 16.5 mu m (ITE). No statistical significant difference was calculated between the four treatment groups. ConclusionsThe conventional implant model represented the greatest reproducibility of the implant position. Digital implant models demonstrated less precision compared to the conventional workflow.
引用
收藏
页码:931 / 936
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] In vivo trueness of full-arch implant-supported CAD/CAM restorations and models based on conventional impressions
    Nedelcu, Robert
    Olsson, Pontus
    Thulin, Mans
    Nystrom, Ingela
    Thor, Andreas
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 128
  • [42] The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study
    Yilmaz, Burak
    Gouveia, Diogo
    Marques, Vinicius Rizzo
    Diker, Emre
    Schimmel, Martin
    Abou-Ayash, Samir
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2021, 110
  • [43] Trueness and Precision Achieved With Conventional and Digital Implant Impressions: A Comparative Investigation of Stone Versus 3-D Printed Master Casts
    Mathey, Ayse
    Bragger, Urs
    Joda, Tim
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2021, 29 (03) : 152 - 159
  • [44] Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Single Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns Following a Digital and Conventional Workflow: Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
    Beck, Florian
    Cepic, Lana Zupancic
    Lettner, Stefan
    Moritz, Andreas
    Ulm, Christian
    Zechner, Werner
    Schedle, Andreas
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (02)
  • [45] 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
  • [46] Fully Digital versus Conventional Workflows for Fabricating Posterior Three-Unit Implant-Supported Reconstructions: A Prospective Crossover Clinical Trial
    Hashemi, Ali Mahmoud
    Hashemi, Hamid Mahmoud
    Siadat, Hakimeh
    Shamshiri, Ahmadreza
    Afrashtehfar, Kelvin Ian
    Alikhasi, Marzieh
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 19 (18)
  • [47] Patient and Operator Centered Outcomes in Implant Dentistry: Comparison between Fully Digital and Conventional Workflow for Single Crown and Three-Unit Fixed-Bridge
    De Angelis, Paolo
    Manicone, Paolo Francesco
    De Angelis, Silvio
    Grippaudo, Cristina
    Gasparini, Giulio
    Liguori, Margherita Giorgia
    Camodeca, Francesca
    Piccirillo, Giovan Battista
    Desantis, Viviana
    D'Amato, Giuseppe
    D'Addona, Antonio
    MATERIALS, 2020, 13 (12) : 1 - 13
  • [48] 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
  • [49] Five-year results of a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing zirconia and titanium abutments supporting single-implant crowns in canine and posterior regions
    Zembic, Anja
    Boesch, Adrian
    Jung, Ronald E.
    Haemmerle, Christoph H. F.
    Sailer, Irena
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2013, 24 (04) : 384 - 390
  • [50] Comparison of conventional and digital workflows for implant-supported screw-retained zirconia FPD bars: Fit and cement gap evaluation using SEM analysis
    Rutkunas, Vygandas
    Gedrimiene, Agne
    Jacobs, Reinhilde
    Malinauskas, Mangirdas
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2021, 14 (02) : 199 - 210