A Comparison of Scan Data Accuracy of Implant Scan Body and Encoded Healing Abutment
2
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: The precision of implant prostheses, which requires accurate impression acquisition, can significantly impact a patient’s treatment prognosis. This study therefore aimed to compare the accuracy of the scan data obtained using an encoded healing abutment with a scan body for digital implant impressions. Materials and Methods: A resin model was constructed using an implant analog (ISLA500, Neobiotech) at sites #15, #17, and #21. After the scan body was connected to on the model, it underwent scanning using a model scanner to produce reference data. The scan body (IS D5, Neobiotech) and encoded healing abutment (IS 4004S, Neobiotech) were connected to the model, and 20 scans per each group were performed using an intraoral scanner (Trios®, 3Shape Dental Systems). The data obtained from these two groups were compared with the reference data using two-way analysis of variance and t-tests. Results: The mean distance from the reference point was 0.089 mm in the scan body group and 0.217 mm in the encoded healing abutment group, indicating that the scan body was closer to the reference value than the encoded healing abutment. Conclusion: Digital implant impressions obtained with the scan body were more accurate than those acquired with the encoded healing abutment when taking digital implant impressions.
Abstract
Purpose: The precision of implant prostheses, which requires accurate impression acquisition, can significantly impact a patient’s treatment prognosis. This study therefore aimed to compare the accuracy of the scan data obtained using an encoded healing abutment with a scan body for digital implant impressions. Materials and Methods: A resin model was constructed using an implant analog (ISLA500, Neobiotech) at sites #15, #17, and #21. After the scan body was connected to on the model, it underwent scanning using a model scanner to produce reference data. The scan body (IS D5, Neobiotech) and encoded healing abutment (IS 4004S, Neobiotech) were connected to the model, and 20 scans per each group were performed using an intraoral scanner (Trios®, 3Shape Dental Systems). The data obtained from these two groups were compared with the reference data using two-way analysis of variance and t-tests. Results: The mean distance from the reference point was 0.089 mm in the scan body group and 0.217 mm in the encoded healing abutment group, indicating that the scan body was closer to the reference value than the encoded healing abutment. Conclusion: Digital implant impressions obtained with the scan body were more accurate than those acquired with the encoded healing abutment when taking digital implant impressions.
참고문헌 (20)
- Son YS, "The principles of dental implant prosthetics", pp.124~179 (2005), Charm Yoon Publishing
- Andreiotelli MK, "Digital data management for CAD", CAM technology. An update of current systems, 2013, pp.21, 9~15
- Leinfelder KF, "A new method for generating ceramic restorations : a CAD-CAM system", J Am Dent Assoc, 118, pp.703~707 (1989)
- Cabral LM, "Comparative analysis of 4 impression techniques for implants", Implant Dent, 16, pp.187~194 (2007)
- Daoudi MF, "An evaluation of three implant level impression techniques for single tooth implant", Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent, 12, pp.9~14 (2004)
- Carr AB, "Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 7, pp.468~475 (1992)
- Goracci C, "Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions : a systematic review of the clinical evidence", Eur J Orthod, 38, pp.422~428 (2015)
- Wiranto MG, "Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of linear measurements on digital models obtained from intraoral and cone-beam computed tomography scans of alginate impressions", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 143, pp.140~147 (2013)
- Abrahamsson I, "The mucosal barrier following abutment dis", reconnection : an experimental study in dogs, 1997, pp.24, 568~572
- Kim YG, "The relationship between dental treatment and temporomandibular disorder", J Korean Dent Assoc, 46, pp.308~314 (2008)
- Abduo J, "The Effect of Coded Healing Abutments on Treatment Duration and Clinical Outcome : A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Encode and Conventional Impression Protocols", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 32, pp.1172~1179 (2017)
- Oh KC, "A review of the digital impression taking technique of implants by using a coded healing abutment", Implantology, 21, pp.128~136 (2017)
- Del'Acqua MA, "Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 25, pp.715~721 (2010)
- Eliasson A, "The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 14, pp.e30~e38 (2012)
- Rutkūnas V, "Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review", Eur J Oral Implantol, 10, pp.101~120 (2017)
- Lee SJ, "Digital versus conventional implant impressions : efficiency outcomes", Clin Oral Implants Res, 24, pp.111~115 (2013)
- Kim KR, "Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression", J Prosthet Dent, 122, pp.543~549 (2019)
- Flügge TV, "Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 144, pp.471~478 (2013)
- Giménez B, "Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 29, pp.853~862 (2014)
- Moreno A, "A clinical protocol for intraoral digital impression of screw-retained CAD", CAM framework on multiple implants based on wavefront sampling technology, 2013, pp.22, 320~325