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
  • [41] A digital technique of bone reduction for a maxillary full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis
    Tang, Weimao
    Zhang, Hai
    Wang, Haozhe
    Li, Lei
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2024, 33 (07): : 714 - 719
  • [42] Impact of Replacing Conventional Complete Dentures with Implant-Supported Fixed Complete Dentures
    Compagnoni, Marco Antonio
    Paeari, Andre Gustavo
    Rodriguez, Larissa Santana
    Giro, Gabriela
    Mendoza Marin, Danny Omar
    Pero, Ana Carolina
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PERIODONTICS & RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2014, 34 (06) : 833 - 839
  • [43] Effect of using scan body accessories and inter-implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study
    Ashry, Amal
    Abdelhamid, Ahmed M.
    Ezzelarab, Salah
    Khamis, Mohamed Moataz
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2024,
  • [44] Pick-up Impression of Complete Arch Implant-Supported Interim Prosthesis
    Jamjoom, Faris Z.
    Lee, Damian J.
    Zheng, Fengyuan
    JOURNAL OF ORAL IMPLANTOLOGY, 2019, 45 (01) : 55 - 57
  • [45] Obtaining reliable intraoral digital scans for an implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis: A dental technique
    Iturrate, Mikel
    Minguez, Rikardo
    Pradies, Guillermo
    Solaberrieta, Eneko
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 121 (02): : 237 - 241
  • [46] Management of Fractured Zirconia Complete Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prosthesis Caused by Misfit Due to Diverse Implant Components: A Case Report
    Shuen, Collin
    Bidra, Avinash S.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2021, 30 (06): : 465 - 472
  • [47] Titanium versus zirconia complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A comparison of plaque accumulation
    Curiel-Aguilera, Francisco P.
    Grif, Garth R.
    Rossmann, Jeffrey A.
    Gonzalez, Jorge A.
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2023, 130 (03): : 369 - 375
  • [48] 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
  • [49] In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions
    Rutkunas, Vygandas
    Gedrimiene, Agne
    Akulauskas, Mykolas
    Fehmer, Vincent
    Sailer, Irena
    Jegelevicius, Darius
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2021, 32 (12) : 1444 - 1454
  • [50] 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