Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols

Peng, Lingyan; Chen, Li; Harris, Bryan T.; Bhandari, Bikash; Morton, Dean; Lin, Wei‐Shao

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.11.024

Cited by 25 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Mean precision values ranged from 21.6 to 698.0 µm) [38], between IOSs (video IOS = 197 ± 4 µm; still image IOS = 378 ± 11 µm) and laboratory scanners (170 ± 12µm) [39], and between cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanners (without scanner-spray = 1.2 ± 0.3 µm; with scanner-spray = 1.1 ± 0.2 µm.) and laboratory scanners (without scanner-spray = 4.0 ± 0.3 µm; with scanner-spray = 3.0 ± 0.3 µm) [40].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study was aimed at comparing the accuracy of impressions of a reference typodont (RT) reproducing a totally edentulous maxilla made with three impression materials: polysulfide, polyether, and polyvinyl-siloxane. Methods: The RT was scanned using a desktop scanner, obtaining a reference scan. Ten impressions for each of the three tested materials were made using a mechanical device with a standardized and consistent modality. A laboratory scanner performed the digitization of each impression. We produced digital models by processing “in reverse” the scans of the physical impressions using a dedicated software, obtaining three groups (n = 10), respectively. The groups were titled: “polysulfide,” “polyvinyl-siloxane,” and “polyether”. The scans in .stl format were imported into Geomagic Control X and then compared to RT to evaluate the accuracy of each scan by calculating trueness and precision in µm. Recorded data were subjected to descriptive statistics. Results: Trueness (arithmetic proximity) values (95%CI) were: polysulfide = 249.9 (121.3–378.5), polyvinyl-siloxane = 216.8 (123.1–310.6), polyether = 291.1 (219.9–362.3). Precision values (95% CI) were: polysulfide = 261.9 (108.8–415), polyvinyl-siloxane = 209.4 (111.9–306.8), polyether = 283 (227.9–338.1). Statistically significant differences were not detected between the means of the experimental groups, both for trueness and precision. Conclusions: The accuracy of the scans obtained from polyvinyl-siloxane, polysulfide, and polyether impressions can be considered comparable in a fully edentulous maxilla.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However on soft tissues, pressure generated by these materials have the potential to compress and therefore distort these areas . Laboratories will often pour a physical impression and then scan the stone model into a box scanner to start the digital manufacturing workflow . These laboratory scanners have very little research describing their accuracy, however some been shown to perform better in complete arch trueness when compared to the last generation of intraoral scanners .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…19 Laboratories will often pour a physical impression and then scan the stone model into a box scanner to start the digital manufacturing workflow. 20 These laboratory scanners have very little research describing their accuracy, however some been shown to perform better in complete arch trueness when compared to the last generation of intraoral scanners. 21 Little to no research exists comparing direct intraoral scanning accuracy of soft tissue areas to that of models generated from elastomeric impressions and then digitized.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner

Mennito

Evans

Nash

et al. 2019

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives An impression accuracy study using a cadaver maxilla was performed using both prepared and intact teeth as well as palatal tissue. Materials and Methods Three crown preparations were performed on a cadaver maxilla. Seven different digital impression systems along with polyvinylsiloxane impressions were used to create digital models of the maxilla. Three‐dimensional (3D) files of the experimental models were compared to a master model. The 3D files were overlaid and analyzed using a comparison software to create color coded figures that were measured for deviations between the master and experimental models. Results For scanning tooth structure, only the Planscan was significantly less accurate than the rest of impression techniques. No significant differences in accuracy were found between models created using digital impressions and those created from traditional vinyl polysiloxane impressions with cross arch deviations ranging from 18 to 39 μm for each. Conclusions Impressions taken using all digital impression systems, save for the Planscan, were able to accurately replicate the tissues of a complete arch human maxilla. Clinical Significance Studies examining accuracy of digital impression systems have generally been performed on materials other than dental tissues. Optically, materials such as plastic and metal have properties different from enamel and dentin. This study evaluates accuracy of digital impression systems on human dentin, enamel, and soft tissues.

show abstract

“…8,9 The algorithm also uses the root mean square (RMS) function to quantify 3D discrepancies between 2 aligned files aiming to assist superimposition accuracy. 9,10,11 Clinical data regarding the accuracy of the intraoral scanners (IOS) of edentulous arches are scarce. 12,13 Previous authors have reported different techniques to facilitate intraoral digital scans of completely edentulous arches using pressure indicating paste 14 or composite resin markers adhered to keratinized oral mucosa.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Static computer‐guided implant placement software programs allow the alignment of the dataset using an iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm 8,9 . The algorithm also uses the root mean square (RMS) function to quantify 3D discrepancies between 2 aligned files aiming to assist superimposition accuracy 9,10,11 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Prosthetically‐Driven Full‐Mouth Implant‐Supported Prostheses Using Guided Surgical Implant Planning with Composite Resin Markers: A Case Report

Cabanes-Gumbau¹,

Agustín-Panadero

Revilla‐León

et al. 2021

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report describes a prosthetically-driven implant planning method, guided by the alignment procedures between the cone beam computed tomography, intraoral digital scans, and digitized maxillary and mandibular interim complete dentures using intraoral composite resin markers as a common reference. The markers were attached to the keratinized oral mucosa of the edentulous ridges using cyanoacrylate and kept in place during the digitizing procedures. The technique provides a simpler and more economical alternative to conventional prosthetically-driven static implant planning methods.

show abstract

Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols

Cited by 25 publications

References 35 publications

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis

Accuracy of Three Impression Materials on the Totally Edentulous Maxilla: In Vitro/In Silico Comparative Analysis

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner

Prosthetically‐Driven Full‐Mouth Implant‐Supported Prostheses Using Guided Surgical Implant Planning with Composite Resin Markers: A Case Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About