Comparison of accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions: two and three dimensional evaluations
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. The present study compared the accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The experimental models were divided into six groups depending on the implant location and the scanning span. Digital impressions were captured using the intraoral optical scanner TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Conventional impressions were taken with the monophase impression material based on addition-cured silicones, Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A highprecision laboratory scanner D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to obtain digital data of resin models and stone casts. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from scanner were imported into the analysis software Geomagic Qualify 14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and scan body deviations were determined through two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses. Each scan body was measured five times. The Sidak t test was used to analyze the experimental data. RESULTS. Implant position and scanning distance affected the impression accuracy. For a unilateral arch implant and the mandible models with two implants, no significant difference was observed in the accuracy between the digital and conventional implant impressions on scan bodies; however, the corresponding differences for trans-arch implants and mandible with six implants were extremely significant (P <.001). CONCLUSION. For short-span scanning, the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions did not differ significantly. For long-span scanning, the precision of digital impressions was significantly inferior to that of the traditional impressions.
Abstract
PURPOSE. The present study compared the accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS. The experimental models were divided into six groups depending on the implant location and the scanning span. Digital impressions were captured using the intraoral optical scanner TRIOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Conventional impressions were taken with the monophase impression material based on addition-cured silicones, Honigum-Mono (DMG, Hamburg, Germany). A highprecision laboratory scanner D900 (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used to obtain digital data of resin models and stone casts. Surface tessellation language (STL) datasets from scanner were imported into the analysis software Geomagic Qualify 14 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA), and scan body deviations were determined through two-dimensional and three-dimensional analyses. Each scan body was measured five times. The Sidak t test was used to analyze the experimental data. RESULTS. Implant position and scanning distance affected the impression accuracy. For a unilateral arch implant and the mandible models with two implants, no significant difference was observed in the accuracy between the digital and conventional implant impressions on scan bodies; however, the corresponding differences for trans-arch implants and mandible with six implants were extremely significant (P <.001). CONCLUSION. For short-span scanning, the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions did not differ significantly. For long-span scanning, the precision of digital impressions was significantly inferior to that of the traditional impressions.
참고문헌 (53)
- Adell R, "A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw", Int J Oral Surg, 10, pp.387~416 (1981)
- Zarb GA, "The longitudinal clinical effectiveness of osseointegrated dental implants in posterior partially edentulous patients", Int J Prosthodont, 6, pp.189~196 (1993)
- Goll GE, "Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks : Part I--Clinical procedures", J Prosthet Dent, 66, pp.377~384 (1991)
- Rangert B, "Forces and moments on Branemark implants", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 4, pp.241~247 (1989)
- Papaspyridakos P, "Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients : a systematic review", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 29, pp.836~845 (2014)
- Stumpel LJ 3rd, "Adhesive abutment cylinder luting", J Prosthet Dent, 69, pp.398~400 (1993)
- 이상직, "Accuracy of five implant impression technique: effect of splinting materials and methods", The Journal of Advanced of Prosthodontics, 3(4), pp.177~185 (2011), 대한치과보철학회[DOI]
- Mangano A, "Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients", Open Dent J, 12, pp.118~124 (2018)
- Johansson G, "Complications, supplementary treatment, and maintenance in edentulous arches with implant-supported fixed prostheses", Int J Prosthodont, 3, pp.89~92 (1990)
- Gallardo YR, "Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions : A systematic review", J Prosthet Dent, 119, pp.214~219 (2018)
- Joda T, "Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial", Clin Oral Implants Res, 28, pp.1318~1323 (2017)
- Park HR, "Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking", BMC Oral Health, 15, pp.151~ (2015)
- Joda T, "Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow : a randomized controlled trial", Clin Oral Implants Res, 27, pp.1401~1406 (2016)
- Syrek A, "Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling", J Dent, 38, pp.553~559 (2010)
- Lee SJ, "Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions", Clin Oral Implants Res, 26, pp.715~719 (2015)
- Chochlidakis KM, "Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics : A systematic review and meta-analysis", J Prosthet Dent, 116, pp.184~190 (2016)
- Pradíes G, "Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology", J Dent, 43, pp.201~208 (2015)
- Vandeweghe S, "Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants : an in vitro study", Clin Oral Implants Res, 28, pp.648~653 (2017)
- 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)
- Grünheid T, "Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance", Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 146, pp.673~682 (2014)
- Mino T, "In silico comparison of the reproducibility of full-arch implant provisional restorations to final restoration between a 3D Scan", CAD, J Prosthodont Res, pp.2015, 59[DOI]
- Gan N, "Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues", PLoS One, 11, pp.e0158800~ (2016)
- Arcuri L, "Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial", J Prosthodont Res, 64, pp.128~136 (2020)
- Ender A, "Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions : a new method of measuring trueness and precision", J Prosthet Dent, 109, pp.121~128 (2013)
- Zimmermann M, "Intraoral scanning systems: purchase decisions and system overview", Magyar Fogorvos, pp.6~14 (2017)
- Yuzbasioglu E, "Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques:evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes", BMC Oral Health, 14, pp.10~ (2014)
- Wismeijer D, "Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions(intraoral scan)of dental implants", Clin Oral Implants Res, 25, pp.1113~1118 (2014)
- Tsirogiannis P, "Evaluation of the marginal fit of single-unit, complete-coverage ceramic restorations fabricated after digital and conventional impressions: A systematic review and meta-analysis", J Prosthet Dent, 116, pp.328~335 (2016)
- Ender A, "In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions", Clin Oral Investig, 20, pp.1495~1504 (2016)
- van Noort R, "The future of dental devices is digital", Dent Mater, 28, pp.3~12 (2012)
- Mangano FG, "Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology : a comparative in vitro study", PLoS One, 11, pp.e0163107~ (2016)
- Schepke U, "Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns : Operating time and patient preference", J Prosthet Dent, 114, pp.403~406 (2015)
- Sakornwimon N, "Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material", J Prosthet Dent, 118, pp.386~391 (2017)
- Joda T, "Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns : a prospective clinical crossover trial", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 30, pp.1047~1053 (2015)
- Ender A, "Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions : a new method of measuring trueness and precision", J Prosthet Dent, 109, pp.121~128 (2013)
- Goracci C, "Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for fullarch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence", Eur J Orthod, 38, pp.422~428 (2016)
- Chochlidakis KM, "Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics : A systematic review and meta-analysis", J Prosthet Dent, 116, pp.184~190 (2016)
- Papaspyridakos P, "Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients : accuracy outcomes", Clin Oral Implants Res, 27, pp.465~472 (2016)
- Amin S, "Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study", Clin Oral Implants Res, 28, pp.1360~1367 (2017)
- Giménez B, "Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants : effect of clinically relevant parameters", Implant Dent, 24, pp.498~504 (2015)
- Mizumoto RM, "The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 21, pp.987~994 (2019)
- van der Meer WJ, "Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology", PLoS One, 7, pp.e43312~ (2012)
- 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)
- Hack GD, "Evaluation of the accuracy of six intraoral scanning devices : An in-vitro investigation", ADA Prof Prod Rev, 10, pp.1~5 (2015)
- Imburgia M, "Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology : a comparative in vitro study", BMC Oral Health, 17, pp.92~ (2017)
- Su TS, "Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner : An in-vitro study", J Prosthodont Res, 59, pp.236~242 (2015)
- Carr AB, "Comparison of impression techniques for a two-implant 15-degree divergent model", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 7, pp.468~475 (1992)
- Jang HK, "Accuracy of impressions for internal-connection implant prostheses with various divergent angles", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 26, pp.1011~1015 (2011)
- Howell KJ, "Comparison of the accuracy of Biomet 3i Encode Robocast Technology and conventional implant impression techniques", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 28, pp.228~240 (2013)
- Yang X, "Accuracy of digital impressions and fitness of single crowns based on digital impressions", Materials, 8, pp.3945~3957 (2015)
- Anadioti E, "3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD", CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions, 2014, pp.23, 610~617
- Knechtle N, "Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation:An in vitro study", J Prosthet Dent (2021)
- Ma B, "Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation:an in vitro comparative study", BMC Oral Health, 21, pp.636~ (2021)