Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes

Papaspyridakos, Panos; Gallucci, German O.; Chen, Chun‐Jung; Hanssen, Stijn; Naert, Ignace; Vandenberghe, Bart

doi:10.1111/clr.12567

Cited by 234 publications

(313 citation statements)

References 32 publications

(51 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

284

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, the former internal gap study includes Seelbach et al's studyon the single crown and Schaefer et al's on the partial crown while the latter image superposition study includes Nedelcu et al's study on simplified and standardized scan body, Ender et al's on full arch, and Patzelt et al's on edentulous jaws 235678910. Papaspyridakos and Wismeijer reported the investigation on the accuracy of digital implant impressions with IOS 111213. In the study on the measurement of the gap of crowns, there is a limitation in determining the performance of the scanner itself due to the uncontrollable factors occurring in the fabrication of crowns while the image superposition study suggests neither the relationship with the actual crown nor the data for the specific important sites such as margins since this is a mere comparison of images.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

Park

2016

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSEThe trueness and precision of acquired images of intraoral digital scanners could be influenced by restoration type, preparation outline form, scanning technology and the application of power. The aim of this study is to perform the comparative evaluation of the 3-dimensional reproducibility of intraoral scanners (IOSs).MATERIALS AND METHODSThe phantom containing five prepared teeth was scanned by the reference scanner (Dental Wings) and 5 test IOSs (E4D dentist, Fastscan, iTero, Trios and Zfx Intrascan). The acquired images of the scanner groups were compared with the image from the reference scanner (trueness) and within each scanner groups (precision). Statistical analysis was performed using independent two-samples t-test and analysis of variance (α=.05).RESULTSThe average deviations of trueness and precision of Fastscan, iTero and Trios were significantly lower than the other scanners. According to the restoration type, significantly higher trueness was observed in crown and inlay than in bridge. However, no significant difference was observed among four sites of preparation outline form. If compared by the characteristics of IOS, high trueness was observed in the group adopting the active triangulation and using powder. However, there was no significant difference between the still image acquisition and video acquisition groups.CONCLUSIONExcept for two intraoral scanners, Fastscan, iTero and Trios displayed comparable levels of trueness and precision values in tested phantom model. Difference in trueness was observed depending on the restoration type, the preparation outline form and characteristics of IOS, which should be taken into consideration when the intraoral scanning data are utilized.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

Park

2016

J Adv Prosthodont

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect of implant angulation on the accuracy of implants casts fabricated with different methods remains an area for further investigation. Several studies reported no significant differences in the accuracy of implant casts for implant angulation up to 15° . Literature is not yet conclusive, but the currently available evidence shows that more than 20° angulation may be associated with higher 3D deviations .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…An operator blinded to the type of casts performed all digital scanning procedures. In order to capture the 3D orientation of the implants in each test cast and their 3D deviations, the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) volumes from the three test groups were registered using a surface based registration algorithm . The cumulative 3D deviations between the control STL file and the 45 test STL files were calculated with superimposition software (Geomagic).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digital Evaluation of Three Splinting Materials Used to Fabricate Verification Jigs for Full‐Arch Implant Prostheses: A Comparative Study

Papaspyridakos

Kim

Finkelman

et al. 2016

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of the present study indicate that more than 20° of angulation, has an effect on the 3D accuracy. However, even though the tilted implants had nominally significantly more 3D deviation, it was not clinically significant. The clinical implications of this in vitro study are relevant to the popular full-arch implant rehabilitation concept of tilted and axial implants such as the All-on-four concept. Tilting the posterior implants to increase the antero-posterior spread increases the implant angulation which is then corrected with 30° angulated abutments. This in vitro study shows that even after correction with angulated abutments if the remaining angulation is up to 20°, framework fit may still be achieved. Verification jig is essential tool to achieve the framework fit. (J Esthet Restor Dent 29:102-109, 2017).

show abstract

“…The former, however, is affected by intrinsic errors and variability due to the use of conventional impression materials and their development in plaster. Intraoral scans can greatly facilitate and standardise dental impression taking also in more difficult cases such as full-arch scans [17] and even in the case of edentulous arches [18], although further clinical studies would need to be conducted for these types of clinical cases. It should be noted, however, that there is some variability with regard to the precision and accuracy of various intraoral scanning systems [19].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Prosthetic Workflow in the Digital Era

Tordiglione

Franco

Bosetti

2016

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this retrospective study was to clinically evaluate the benefits of adopting a full digital workflow for the implementation of fixed prosthetic restorations on natural teeth. To evaluate the effectiveness of these protocols, treatment plans were drawn up for 15 patients requiring rehabilitation of one or more natural teeth. All the dental impressions were taken using a Planmeca PlanScan® (Planmeca OY, Helsinki, Finland) intraoral scanner, which provided digital casts on which the restorations were digitally designed using Exocad® (Exocad GmbH, Germany, 2010) software and fabricated by CAM processing on 5-axis milling machines. A total of 28 single crowns were made from monolithic zirconia, 12 vestibular veneers from lithium disilicate, and 4 three-quarter vestibular veneers with palatal extension. While the restorations were applied, the authors could clinically appreciate the excellent match between the digitally produced prosthetic design and the cemented prostheses, which never required any occlusal or proximal adjustment. Out of all the restorations applied, only one exhibited premature failure and was replaced with no other complications or need for further scanning. From the clinical experience gained using a full digital workflow, the authors can confirm that these work processes enable the fabrication of clinically reliable restorations, with all the benefits that digital methods bring to the dentist, the dental laboratory, and the patient.

show abstract

Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes

Cited by 234 publications

References 32 publications

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form

Digital Evaluation of Three Splinting Materials Used to Fabricate Verification Jigs for Full‐Arch Implant Prostheses: A Comparative Study

The Prosthetic Workflow in the Digital Era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About