Examination of the Position Accuracy of Implant Abutments Reproduced by Intra-Oral Optical Impression

Ajioka, Hitoshi; Kihara, Hidemichi; Odaira, Chikayuki; Kobayashi, Takuya; Kondo, Hisatomo

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164048

Cited by 45 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In prosthodontics, IOS can be successfully used to capture the 3D position of dental implants and to fabricate implant-supported restorations [ 4 , 14 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 24 , 47 , 51 , 54 , 58 ]. The 3D position of the implants captured with the IOS is sent to the CAD software, where the scanbodies are coupled with an implant library, and the desired prosthetic restorations can be drawn within minutes; this restoration then can be physically realised by milling through a powerful CAM machine using ceramic materials [ 89 – 119 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature

Mangano¹,

Gandolfi²,

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIntraoral scanners (IOS) are devices for capturing direct optical impressions in dentistry. The purpose of this narrative review on the use of IOS was to: (1) identify the advantages/disadvantages of using optical impressions compared to conventional impressions; (2) investigate if optical impressions are as accurate as conventional impressions; (3) evaluate the differences between the IOS currently available commercially; (4) determine the current clinical applications/limitations in the use of IOS.MethodsElectronic database searches were performed using specific keywords and MeSH terms. The searches were confined to full-text articles written in English and published in peer-reviewed journals between January 2007 and June 2017.ResultsOne hundred thirty-two studies were included in the present review; among them, 20 were previous literature reviews, 78 were in vivo clinical studies (6 randomized controlled/crossover trials, 31 controlled/comparative studies; 24 cohort studies/case series; 17 case reports) and 34 were in vitro comparative studies.ConclusionsOptical impressions reduce patient discomfort; IOS are time-efficient and simplify clinical procedures for the dentist, eliminating plaster models and allowing better communication with the dental technician and with patients; however, with IOS, it can be difficult to detect deep margin lines in prepared teeth and/or in case of bleeding, there is a learning curve, and there are purchasing and managing costs. The current IOS are sufficiently accurate for capturing impressions for fabricating a whole series of prosthetic restorations (inlays/onlays, copings and frameworks, single crowns and fixed partial dentures) on both natural teeth and implants; in addition, they can be used for smile design, and to fabricate posts and cores, removable partial prostheses and obturators. The literature to date does not support the use of IOS in long-span restorations with natural teeth or implants. Finally, IOS can be integrated in implant dentistry for guided surgery and in orthodontics for fabricating aligners and custom-made devices.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature

Mangano¹,

Gandolfi²,

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, only a few studies have dealt with the use of IOS in oral implantology [7, 9, 10, 27, 28], and still there is no sufficient evidence on the possibility of using IOS to take impressions for long-span restorations [38–40], or in the case of fully edentulous patients [25, 39]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Imburgia¹,

Logozzo

Hauschild³

et al. 2017

BMC Oral Health

293

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUntil now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants.MethodsTwo gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out.ResultsIn the PEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (45.8 ± 1.6μm), followed by Trios3® (50.2 ± 2.5μm), Omnicam® (58.8 ± 1.6μm) and TrueDefinition® (61.4 ± 3.0μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and Trios3®, CS3600® and Omnicam®, CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and Omnicam®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®. In the FEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (60.6 ± 11.7μm), followed by Omnicam® (66.4 ± 3.9μm), Trios3® (67.2 ± 6.9μm) and TrueDefinition® (106.4 ± 23.1μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®. For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM. In the PEM, TrueDefinition® had the best precision (19.5 ± 3.1μm), followed by Trios3® (24.5 ± 3.7μm), CS3600® (24.8 ± 4.6μm) and Omnicam® (26.3 ± 1.5μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. In the FEM, Trios3® had the best precision (31.5 ± 9.8μm), followed by Omnicam® (57.2 ± 9.1μm), CS3600® (65.5 ± 16.7μm) and TrueDefinition® (75.3 ± 43.8μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. For CS3600®, For CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no significant differences were found for Trios3®.ConclusionsSignificant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. These findings may have important clinical implications.

show abstract

“…Several studies have compared accuracy with specific mention of trueness and precision of different IOSs in implant dentistry [24][25][26][27][28] , as summarized in Table 1. The partial prosthesis and the full arch prosthesis in Table 1 were assumed to be a 3-unit implants-supported bridge and a 6-unit implant-supported bridge from molar to molar region, respectively.…”

Section: Accuracy Of Ioss In Implant Dentistrymentioning

confidence: 99%

The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry

Saeki

Kuroshima

2020

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Optical technology has provided a paradigm shift in implant dentistry. However, there is little information about the use of optical technology in implant dentistry, since this technology is relatively new and has been evolving under the current conditions. In the present narrative literature review, the effects of intraoral scanners (IOSs) use on accuracy and the operating time, as well as safety and patient perception, in implant dentistry were evaluated from the clinical perspective. The accuracy of digital scans with IOSs was comparable to the conventional impression techniques for single or partial prostheses, and the digital scans with IOSs are time efficient when taking impressions for single-or double-abutments. However, the accuracy and time efficiency are decreased for multiple implant scans or large-area scans with IOSs use. Patient satisfaction with and preference for IOSs scans are generally superior to those with conventional impression procedures.

show abstract

Examination of the Position Accuracy of Implant Abutments Reproduced by Intra-Oral Optical Impression

Cited by 45 publications

References 32 publications

Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature

Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About