Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques

Lyu, Mingyue; Di, Ping; Lin, Ye; Jiang, Xi

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016

Cited by 31 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although Alshabarty et al [ 41 ] described itself as an in vivo study, it could be classified as in vitro because the reference models used, although they proceeded from impressions taken in patients, were effectively in vitro models. In this case, 14 articles investigated cases of CE exclusively [ 11 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ], nine of PE [ 41 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 ], two of SI [ 63 , 64 ] and another included both CE and SI models [ 65 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the 15 in vitro studies that simulated CE, six reported greater accuracy with DI [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 52 , 65 ], four found no difference [ 42 , 46 , 48 , 53 ] and five reported greater accuracy with CI [ 11 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 54 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Taking the most recent studies [ 11 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 ], no consensus could be construed from the results as three did not find differences between DI and CI [ 46 , 48 , 53 ], two found greater accuracy of DI [ 50 , 52 ] and five found greater accuracy of CI [ 11 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 54 ]. Of this latter five articles, three used similar methods [ 11 , 47 , 49 ] in terms of impression taking techniques and accuracy evaluation (CMM).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of homogeneity among the studies made it difficult to reach clear conclusions, especially for implant-supported restorations in CE patients, in which the 15 CE studies used obtained diverse results. According to six of these studies, DI was found to be more accurate [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 52 , 65 ], while four articles did not find differences between the techniques [ 42 , 46 , 48 , 53 ], and five found greater accuracy with CI [ 11 , 47 , 49 , 51 , 54 ]. One of the reports that observed greater accuracy with DI [ 65 ] performed closed tray CI which, according to the systematic review by Papaspyridakos et al [ 68 ] is less accurate compared with open tray technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

Albanchez-González

Brinkmann

Peláez

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: “dental implants”, “impression accuracy”, “digital impression” and “conventional impression”. Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

Albanchez-González

Brinkmann

Peláez

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature indicates that the implant digital impression is influenced by the scan body, 11 12 the number of implants, 2 13 14 the span of scanning, 2 3 15 16 17 the alignment, location and depth of implants, 5 6 14 18 the scanned surface morphology, and access to the relevant surfaces, 19 20 21 22 23 24 and the scanning path. 25 However, to the knowledge of authors, studies investigating the effect of adjacent teeth on digital scanning of implants are lacking in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Implant Adjacent Teeth on the Accuracy of Digital Impression

Abduo,

El-Haddad

2023

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth patterns on the accuracy of digital scans of parallel and divergent implants for three-unit prostheses. Materials and Methods A maxillary typodont model with implants in the locations of the first premolars and first molars was used to develop three clinical scenarios for three-unit prostheses: (S1) Partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars and first molars only; (S2) partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars, second premolars and first molars; and (S3) partially edentulous arch with missing canines, first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars. On one side, the implants were parallel, and for the other side, the implants had a 15-degree buccolingual angle. With the aid of scan bodies, 10 digital impressions were taken for each scenario and for each side. To evaluate the accuracy, a reverse engineering software was used to measure trueness, precision, and interimplant distance. Results The best trueness for parallel implants was observed for S2 (30.0 µm), followed by S3 (67.3 µm) and S1 (74.8 µm) (p < 0.001). Likewise, S2 had the best precision for parallel implants (31.3 µm) followed by S3 (38.0 µm) and S1 (70.3 µm) (p < 0.001). For the divergent implants, S2 exhibited the best trueness (23.1 µm), followed by S3 (48.2 µm) and S1 (59.4 µm) (p = 0.007). Similarly, the S2 had the best precision (12.3 µm) followed by S3 (62.1 µm) and S1 (66.9 µm) (p < 0.001). The S2 had the least interimplant distance deviation followed by S1 and S3. The difference was significant for parallel implants (p = 0.03), but insignificant for divergent implants (p = 0.15). Conclusion Regardless of the presenting scenario, digital implant impressions for three-unit prostheses appear to be clinically accurate. A clear interimplant area between scan bodies enhanced the accuracy of digital impressions. This observation can be attributed to more accessible axial surface scanning of the scan body.

show abstract

Effect of a Novel ‘Scan Body’ on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions

Zhang,

Yang,

et al. 2024

International Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques

Cited by 31 publications

References 37 publications

Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

Influence of Implant Adjacent Teeth on the Accuracy of Digital Impression

Effect of a Novel ‘Scan Body’ on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About