The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study

Yılmaz, Burak; Gouveia, Diogo; Marques, Vinicius Rizzo; Diker, Emre; Schimmel, Martín; Abou‐Ayash, Samir

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103684

Cited by 22 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 36 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%

“…Nevertheless, the most recent study for SI found greater accuracy with DI than with open-tray implant-level CI [ 64 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For SI, the two oldest studies that simulated SI [ 63 , 65 ] found greater accuracy with CI. Nevertheless, the most recent study for SI found better accuracy with DI than with CIs taken with open tray and implant-level [ 64 ].…”

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

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%

“…Nevertheless, the most recent study for SI found greater accuracy with DI than with open-tray implant-level CI [ 64 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…Conventional impression of implants by using polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) has been a common procedure for many years. 1 However, digital implant impressions have become popular and feasible alternatives due to the development of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technologies and intraoral scanners (IOSs). [2][3][4][5][6] Digitization of implants by using a direct digital workflow has also eliminated the need for a definitive cast, 7 which has also led to reduced storage space needed and higher reproducibility.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conventional impression of implants by using polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) has been a common procedure for many years 1 . However, digital implant impressions have become popular and feasible alternatives due to the development of computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD‐CAM) technologies and intraoral scanners (IOSs) 2–6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of digital implant analog design on the positional trueness of an analog in additively manufactured models: An in‐vitro study

Mata‐Mata¹,

Dönmez

Meirelles

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Limited evidence exists regarding the accuracy of implant analog position in printed models, particularly when implant analogs with varying designs are used. Purpose To evaluate the effect of digital implant analog (DIA) design on the trueness of their position in additively manufactured digital implant models (DIMs) and to compare with that of a conventional implant analog in a stone cast. Materials and Methods A dentate maxillary model with a conventional implant analog (Nobel Biocare Implant Replica 4.3 mm CC RP) at left second premolar site was digitized by using a laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) and a (SB) scan body to generate the master standard tessellation language (STL) file (M0). 12 custom trays were fabricated on M0 file and conventional polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the model were made. All impressions were poured after inserting conventional implant analogs (Nobel RP Implant Replica) (Group A). Model was then digitized with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) and the same SB, and DIMs with three different DIA designs (Nobel Biocare [Group B], Elos [Group C], and NT‐trading [Group D]) were generated (Dental System‐Model Builder). 12 DIMs of each design were additively manufactured and corresponding DIAs were inserted. All models were digitized by using the same laboratory scanner and SB, and these STLs were transferred to a 3D analysis software (Geomagic Control X), where the STL files of the models were superimposed over M0. Linear and 3D deviations at three selected points on SB (implant‐abutment connection, most cervical point on SB, and most coronal point on SB) as well as angular deviations on two planes (buccolingual and mesiodistal) were calculated. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni corrected t‐tests were used to analyze the trueness of implant analog positions (α = 0.05). Results The interaction of main effects significantly affected linear (p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p = 0.020). At point 1, group D had higher deviations than groups A and B (p ≤ 0.015). In addition, groups A and D had higher deviations than group B at point 4 (p < 0.001). While group C had similar linear deviations to those of other groups at point 1 and point 4 (p ≥ 0.192), the differences among test groups at point 2 were nonsignificant (p ≥ 0.276). Group B had lower angular deviations than groups C (p = 0.039) and D (p = 0.006) on buccolingual plane. Conclusions Analog design affected the trueness of analog position as proprietary, pressure/friction fit DIA (group B) had higher linear trueness than screw‐retained DIA (Group D) and conventional implant analog (group A). In addition, pressure/friction fit DIA had the highest angular trueness among tested DIAs.

show abstract

Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study

Çakmak

Dönmez

Atalay

et al. 2021

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study

Cited by 22 publications

References 36 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 digital implant analog design on the positional trueness of an analog in additively manufactured models: An in‐vitro study

Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About