Effect of prefabricated auxiliary devices and scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant digital impressions

Wu, Hio Kuan; Chen, Guanhui; Wang, Jing; Zhang, Zhengchuan; Huang, Xiaoqiong; Lin, Xiaoxuan; Deng, Feilong; Li, Yiming

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104788

Journal of Dentistry

2024

DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104788

|View full text |Cite

Effect of prefabricated auxiliary devices and scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant digital impressions

Hio Kuan Wu,

Guanhui Chen,

Jing Wang

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Does intra‐oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full‐arch implant‐supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Cai,

Li,

et al. 2024

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe present study aimed to systematically review the studies comparing the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) and conventional implant impressions (CI) in completely edentulous patients.Materials and MethodsElectronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL up to December 1, 2023. Clinical studies and in vitro studies reporting the accuracy of digital full arch impressions were included. The primary outcome is the 3‐dimensional deviations between the study reference models. A risk of bias assessment was performed for clinical studies. A stratified meta‐analysis and a single‐armed meta‐analysis were conducted.ResultsA total of 49 studies were included, with 8 clinical studies and 41 in vitro studies. For comparison between IOS and conventional impressions, studies were categorized into two groups based on the different measurement methods employed: RMS and CMM. In studies using RMS, the result favored the IOS in the unparalleled situation with the mean difference of −99.29 μm (95% CI: [−141.38, −57.19], I2 = 81%), while the result was opposite with the mean difference of 13.62 μm (95% CI: [10.97, 16.28], I2 = 26%) when implants were paralleled. For different brands of IOS, the accuracy ranged from 76.11 μm (95% CI: [42.36, 109.86]) to 158.63 μm (95% CI: [−14.68, 331.93]).ConclusionsAccuracy of intraoral scan is clinically acceptable in edentulous arches, especially for unparalleled implants. More clinical studies are needed to verify the present finding.

show abstract

Does intra‐oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full‐arch implant‐supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Cai,

Li,

et al. 2024

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Classification of Complete‐Arch Implant Scanning Techniques Recorded by Using Intraoral Scanners

Revilla‐León,

Gómez‐Polo,

Rutkunas

et al. 2024

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo classify the complete‐arch implant scanning techniques recorded by using intraoral scanners (IOSs).OverviewDifferent implant scanning techniques have been described for recording complete‐arch implant scans by using IOSs. However, dental literature lacks on a classification of these implant scanning techniques. Implant scanning techniques aim is to record the 3‐dimensional position of the implants being scanned, while implant scanning workflows require additional scans to record all the information needed for designing an implant prosthesis. This additional information includes soft tissue information, tooth position, antagonist arch, and maxillomandibular relationship.ConclusionsThere are five complete‐arch implant scanning techniques captured by using IOSs: non‐splinting, non‐calibrated splinting, calibrated implant scan bodies, calibrated frameworks, and reverse impression methods. The digital workflow varies depending on the implant scanning technique selected.Clinical SignificanceThe understanding of the varying implant scanning techniques and the main differences among them may ease the decision criteria for recording digital implant scans by using intraoral scanners.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Effect of prefabricated auxiliary devices and scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant digital impressions

Cited by 2 publications

References 40 publications

Does intra‐oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full‐arch implant‐supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Does intra‐oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full‐arch implant‐supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Classification of Complete‐Arch Implant Scanning Techniques Recorded by Using Intraoral Scanners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About