Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review

Schmidt, Alexander; Wöstmann, Bernd; Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie

doi:10.1111/clr.13951

Cited by 42 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 85 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The best fit alignment method is used to evaluate the accuracy of different digital impressions by scanning either closed or open tray stone cast using a desktop scanner to fabricate a digital model, which was the best fit aligned over the digital models obtained from scanning intraorally using IOS. It was reported that the best-fit alignment method is suitable for the evaluation of accuracy in one quadrant [ 3 , 31 , 32 ]. This algorithm minimizes the global distances between the test and reference data, and the deviation between the data is measured using the root-mean-square error [ 6 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This in vivo study aims to assess the accuracy of the digital intraoral implant impression technique, the conventional closed-tray impression technique, and open-tray impression techniques in a standardized method of data segmentation along with the best-fit algorithm to overcome the inconsistency of results of previous studies regarding implant impression techniques. Materials and methods Sixteen implants were placed in eight patients. Each patient has undergone four impression techniques: direct intraoral scanning of the stock abutment, intraoral scanning using a scan body, conventional closed tray impression technique, and the conventional open tray impression technique. The conventional impressions were poured into stone casts with analogues and stock abutments and scanned using a desktop scanner. In intraoral scanning of the scan body, computer-aided design software was used for the replacement of the scan body with a custom-made abutment that is identical to the stock abutment, allowing comparison with the other impression techniques. The deviation in implant position between the groups was measured using special 3D inspection and metrology software. Statistical comparisons were carried out between the studied groups using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Results The total deviation between groups was compared to the reference group represented by the intraoral scanning of the abutment. The total deviation was statistically significantly different (P = 0.000) among the different studied groups. The mean deviation was recorded as 21.45 ± 3.3 μm, 40.04 ± 4.1 μm, and 47.79 ± 4.6 μm for the intraoral scanning of the scan body, the conventional closed, and open tray, respectively. Conclusion For implant impressions in partially edentulous patients, intraoral oral scanning using a scan body significantly improves scanning and overall accuracy. Regarding conventional impressions, the closed-tray impression techniques showed more accuracy than conventional open-tray impressions. Clinical relevance Intraoral digital implant impression using scan body offers more accuracy than conventional implant impression techniques for recording posterior implant position in free-end saddle partially edentulous patients.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that the dimensions of the reference model are obtained by using the most accurate methods available today such as coordinate measurement machine (CMM) or an industrial scanner. On the other hand, in clinical conditions, the ground truth or the real dimensions of the patient's intraoral tissues being digitized are not known, and the reference model is obtained by using conventional techniques such as diagnostic stone casts 16–36 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Complete digital workflows for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported crowns and short span fixed dental prostheses obtain similar marginal and internal discrepancies compared with conventional methods 21–35 . The challenge today remains to incorporate IOSs into complete digital workflows for fabricating complete dentures 29 and Kennedy Class I and II removable partial dentures 30 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors

Revilla‐León

Kois

2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To describe the factors related to the operator skills and decisions that influence the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision making when using IOSs and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans. Overview Each IOS system is limited by the hardware and software characteristics of the selected device. The operator decisions that can influence the accuracy of IOSs include the scanning technology and system selection, scanning head size, calibration, scanning distance, exposure of the IOS to ambient temperature changes, ambient humidity, ambient lighting conditions, operator experience, scanning pattern, extension of the scan, cutting off, rescanning, and overlapping procedures. Conclusions The knowledge and understanding of the operator factors that impact scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs and for successfully integrating IOSs in daily practices. Clinical Significance Operator skills and clinical decisions significantly impact intraoral scanning accuracy. Dental professionals must know and understand these influencing operator factors for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

show abstract

“…Over the past several decades, DITs using intraoral scanners have been considered an advantageous alternative to CITs because they improve comfort and are more efficient [8,9]. However, the accuracy of DITs remains inconclusive, and a wide range of values (5.38-810 µm) is documented [10].Most recent studies regarding the accuracy of implant impression techniques are limited to laboratory study designs [11][12][13][14][15][16][17], and only a few clinical studies have been reported [18]. As defined by ISO 5725-1, accuracy comprises trueness and precision.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most recent studies regarding the accuracy of implant impression techniques are limited to laboratory study designs [11][12][13][14][15][16][17], and only a few clinical studies have been reported [18]. As defined by ISO 5725-1, accuracy comprises trueness and precision.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

Guo

Jiang

et al. 2023

J Prosthodont Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Misfitting implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) may lead to an increased rate of biological and mechanical complications and further influence the long-term success of implants [1,2]. As the first step in fabricating a passively fitting implant-supported FDP, accurate implant impressions obtained using either conventional (CITs) or digital impression techniques (DITs) are crucial [2][3][4].CITs are a reliable and standard approach for transferring the positions of dental implants [5]. However, certain limitations exist, including high complexity, time consumption, material costs, storage issues, and unpleasant patient experiences [6,7]. Over the past several decades, DITs using intraoral scanners have been considered an advantageous alternative to CITs because they improve comfort and are more efficient [8,9]. However, the accuracy of DITs remains inconclusive, and a wide range of values (5.38-810 µm) is documented [10].Most recent studies regarding the accuracy of implant impression techniques are limited to laboratory study designs [11][12][13][14][15][16][17], and only a few clinical studies have been reported [18]. As defined by ISO 5725-1, accuracy comprises trueness and precision. Trueness describes the deviation of the obtained results from true reference values. However, a standard method for intraoral acquisition of the actual reference positions of implants has not yet been developed [3]. Precision describes the closeness of agreement between the results of repeated measurements on the same object. Although the precision of impression techniques can be evaluated in clinical studies by measuring the difference between repeated intraoral impressions [19][20][21], previous precision studies regarding implant impression techniques mainly employed in vitro designs [22][23][24][25][26], and clinical data remain very limited [27]. Compared with extraoral conditions, intraoral conditions involve more complex factors associated with the impression removal pathway, including temperature, humidity, saliva, tongue movements, limited spaces, and different ambient light conditions, which may influence the accuracy of the J Prosthodont Res. 2023; **(**):

show abstract

Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review

Cited by 42 publications

References 85 publications

Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial

Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors

Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About