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

被引:33
|
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
  • [1] Comparison of Treatment Time for Single-Implant Crowns Between Digital and Conventional Workflows for Posterior Implant Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Jarangkul, Worapat
    Kunavisarut, Chatchai
    Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri, Suchaya
    Joda, Tim
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2024, 39 (02) : 286 - 293
  • [2] Immediate digital implant scanning workflow for posterior single implant-supported crowns: A case series
    Carranza, Maria Gabriela
    Geminiani, Alessandro
    Chochlidakis, Konstantinos
    Genetti, Loren
    Tsigarida, Alexandra
    Ercoli, Carlo
    JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 124 (05): : 503 - 508
  • [3] WITHIN-SUBJECT COMPARISON OF MASTICATION WITH FIXED AND REMOVABLE IMPLANT-SUPPORTED MANDIBULAR PROSTHESES
    LUND, JP
    FEINE, JS
    MASKAWI, K
    DEGRANDMONT, P
    TACHE, R
    TANGUAY, R
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1994, 73 : 233 - 233
  • [4] Soft tissue response to zirconia and titanium implant abutments: an in vivo within-subject comparison
    van Brakel, Ralph
    Meijer, Gert J.
    Verhoeven, Jan Willem
    Jansen, John
    de Putter, Cornelis
    Cune, Marco S.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY, 2012, 39 (10) : 995 - 1001
  • [5] Within-Subject Comparison of Maxillary Implant-Supported Overdentures with and without Palatal Coverage
    Zembic, Anja
    Tahmaseb, Ali
    Wismeijer, Daniel
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2015, 17 (03) : 570 - 579
  • [6] A double-blind randomized within-subject study to evaluate clinical applicability of four digital workflows for the fabrication of posterior single implant crown
    Guo, Danni
    Muehlemann, Sven
    Pan, Shaoxia
    Zhou, Yongsheng
    Jung, Ronald E.
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2023, 34 (12) : 1319 - 1329
  • [7] Digital vs Conventional Workflow for Screw-Retained Single-Implant Crowns: A Comparison of Key Considerations
    Di Fiore, Adolfo
    Vigolo, Paolo
    Graiff, Lorenzo
    Stellini, Edoardo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2018, 31 (06) : 577 - 579
  • [8] Multiscale Contact Mechanics of Ankle Joint Implant: Comparison of Two Implant Models
    Hodaei, Mohammad
    Farhang, Kambiz
    2014 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE AND COMPUTATIONAL INTELLIGENCE (CSCI), VOL 2, 2014, : 3 - 10
  • [9] WITHIN-SUBJECT COMPARISONS OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED MANDIBULAR PROSTHESES - CHOICE OF PROSTHESIS
    FEINE, JS
    DEGRANDMONT, P
    BOUDRIAS, P
    BRIEN, N
    LAMARCHE, C
    TACHE, R
    LUND, JP
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1994, 73 (05) : 1105 - 1111
  • [10] WITHIN-SUBJECT COMPARISONS OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED MANDIBULAR PROSTHESES - PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION
    DEGRANDMONT, P
    FEINE, JS
    TACHE, R
    BOUDRIAS, P
    DONOHUE, WB
    TANGUAY, R
    LUND, JP
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1994, 73 (05) : 1096 - 1104