Digital implant impressions by cone‐beam computerized tomography: a pilot study

Abstract

Cone-beam computerized tomography might be a valid impression-taking method in full-mouth rehabilitations with implants. Further evaluations are needed with more implant and CBCT systems. The radiation dose might be considered when deciding to use this impression system. The types of patients appropriate for this treatment option should also be determined to fulfill the principles of the ALARA law.

The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Most studies were performed in vitro using experimental stone, metal or resin models with implants or laboratory analogs, respectively (75 studies). One study examined digital impressions in vitro using formalin‐conserved human mandibles (Corominas‐Delgado et al., ). One randomized controlled clinical trial (Pozzi et al., ), one retrospective study (Perez‐Davidi et al., ) and two experimental studies (Andriessen et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ) were performed in vivo (Table ).…”

“…One study used CBCT technology (LOC‐I, ENGimage) for acquisition of implant positions (Corominas‐Delgado et al., ). The studied intraoral scanning devices were as follows: Trios (3Shape, Denmark) (Flügge, Att, Metzger, & Nelson, ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Vandeweghe et al., ); Cerec (Bluecam and Omnicam devices, Sirona, Germany) (Aktas et al., ; Amin et al., ; Giménez et al., ,b; Giménez, Pradíes et al., ; Vandeweghe et al., ); iTero (Cadent, CA, USA) (Abdel‐Azim et al., ; Flügge et al., ; Giménez et al., ; Lee et al., ; Lin et al., ); TrueDefinition (3M Espe, USA) (Amin et al., ; Flügge et al., ; Vandeweghe et al., ); LavaCOS (3M Espe, USA) (Giménez et al., ,b; Giménez, Pradíes et al., ; Karl et al., ; Vandeweghe et al., ); 3D Progress (MHT) (Giménez et al., ,b; Giménez, Pradíes et al., ); and ZFX Intrascan (Zimmer) (Giménez et al., ,b; Giménez, Pradíes et al., ).…”

“…The majority of studies used original implant scan bodies for intraoral and extraoral optical scanning (Amin et al., ; Flügge et al., , ; Katsoulis et al., ; Lee et al., ; Lin et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Erdelt et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Güth et al., ). Besides original scan bodies, generic scan bodies (Corominas‐Delgado et al., ; Giménez et al., , ,b; Giménez, Pradíes et al., ; Vandeweghe et al., ) or abutments (Aktas et al., ; Karl et al., ) were used for optical scanning. Photogrammetric acquisition of implant positions was realized with custom‐made scan bodies (Bergin et al., ; Ono et al., ).…”

“…(). All other authors used screw‐retained scan bodies analog to conventional impression copings (Amin et al., ; Bergin et al., ; Corominas‐Delgado et al., ; Flügge et al., , ; Giménez et al., , ,b; Giménez, Pradíes et al., ; Karl et al., ; Katsoulis et al., ; Lee et al., ; Lin et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Erdelt et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Güth et al., ; Vandeweghe et al., ). The most commonly used scan bodies among all studies had a cylindrical design (Aktas et al., ; Amin et al., ; Flügge et al., , ; Giménez et al., , ,b; Giménez, Pradíes et al., ; Karl et al., ; Katsoulis et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Erdelt et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Güth et al., ; Vandeweghe et al., ).…”

“…The three‐dimensional fit of frameworks was examined by lining of caps and measurement of lining material thickness (Aktas et al., ). Frameworks on implants in formalin‐conserved human mandibles were assessed by probing of the gap, interpreting fit on periapical radiographs and photographs (Corominas‐Delgado et al., ). In vivo studies assessed the gap between frameworks and abutments using periapical radiography (Perez‐Davidi et al., ) or clinical examination using a dental probe (Pozzi et al., ).…”