Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Plastic Transfer Impression Copings for Three Implant Systems

Teo, Juin Wei; Tan, Kong-Bing; Nicholls, Jack I.; Wong, Kin Mun; Uy, Joanne

doi:10.11607/jomi.3382

Cited by 26 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One clinical 12 study and 4 in vitro 21‐24 studies from the completely edentulous and one clinical 11 and one in vitro 25 study from the partially edentulous group were excluded from the meta‐analysis, which included 11 studies overall. Excluded studies 26‐62 and reasons for exclusion are shown in Table 1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Papaspyridakos

Vazouras

Chen

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

110

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To systematically review in vitro and clinical studies comparing quantitatively the 3D accuracy (global implant deviations) of digital vs conventional implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients. Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify in vitro and clinical studies, reporting on the 3D accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. Secondary outcomes were the effect of implant angulation, type of conventional impression technique, and type of intraoral scanner on the accuracy of implant impressions. Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 9 in vitro studies and 1 clinical study reporting on completely edentulous impressions, while 6 in vitro and 2 clinical studies reported on partially edentulous impressions. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed for 5 completely edentulous and 6 partially edentulous studies. The studies exhibited high values for heterogeneity. A random effects model was conducted to estimate the effect size. Based on 5 in vitro studies on completely edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 8.20 µm (95% CI: −53.56, 37.15) and the digital impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.72). Based on 1 clinical and 5 in vitro studies on partially edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 52.31 µm (95% CI: 6.30, 98.33) and the conventional impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.03). Five in vitro and 2 clinical studies were not included in the quantitative analysis due to heterogeneity in the methodology. Implant angulation affected the accuracy in favor of the partially edentulous conventional impressions whereas the effect of different scanners was not statistically significant on the completely edentulous impressions (p = 0.82). Conclusions: Digital scans appear to have comparable 3D accuracy with conventional implant impressions based mainly on in vitro studies. However, clinical trials are recommended to investigate the clinical accuracy of digital scans and digitally fabricated interim or prototype prostheses, before digital implant scans can be recommended for routine clinical use.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Papaspyridakos

Vazouras

Chen

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

110

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[7][8][9] Variables that have been shown to influence implant impression accuracy include impression material selection, [10][11][12] tray selection, 13 impression approach, 9,14 implant angulation, 15,16 and the inherent fit of impression components. 17,18 While numerous studies have evaluated and compared existing implant impression techniques, research to date does not support one single impression technique as superior to all others. 9 The advent of digital technology gives clinicians the option to use intraoral scanners in place of conventional impression techniques.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Implant Impression Approach: A Three-Dimensional Comparative In Vitro Analysis

Basaki¹,

Hn²,

Souza³

et al. 2017

Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To assess the three-dimensional (3D) accuracy and clinical acceptability of implant definitive casts fabricated using a digital impression approach and to compare the results with those of a conventional impression method in a partially edentulous condition. Materials and Methods: A mandibular reference model was fabricated with implants in the first premolar and molar positions to simulate a patient with bilateral posterior edentulism. Ten implant-level impressions per method were made using either an intraoral scanner with scanning abutments for the digital approach or an open-tray technique and polyvinylsiloxane material for the conventional approach. 3D analysis and comparison of implant location on resultant definitive casts were performed using laser scanner and quality control software. The inter-implant distances and interimplant angulations for each implant pair were measured for the reference model and for each definitive cast (n = 20 per group); these measurements were compared to calculate the magnitude of error in 3D for each definitive cast. The influence of implant angulation on definitive cast accuracy was evaluated for both digital and conventional approaches. Statistical analysis was performed using t test (α = .05) for implant position and angulation. Clinical qualitative assessment of accuracy was done via the assessment of the passivity of a master verification stent for each implant pair, and significance was analyzed using chi-square test (α = .05). Results: A 3D error of implant positioning was observed for the two impression techniques vs the reference model, with mean ± standard deviation (SD) error of 116 ± 94 μm and 56 ± 29 μm for the digital and conventional approaches, respectively (P = .01). In contrast, the inter-implant angulation errors were not significantly different between the two techniques (P = .83). Implant angulation did not have a significant influence on definitive cast accuracy within either technique (P = .64). The verification stent demonstrated acceptable passive fit for 11 out of 20 casts and 18 out of 20 casts for the digital and conventional methods, respectively (P = .01). Conclusion: Definitive casts fabricated using the digital impression approach were less accurate than those fabricated from the conventional impression approach for this simulated clinical scenario. A significant number of definitive casts generated by the digital technique did not meet clinically acceptable accuracy for the fabrication of a multiple implant-supported restoration.

show abstract

“…Passivity is a concern with multiple implants placed at varying angulations to each other because of documented inaccuracies in implant impressions and in restoration manufacturing procedures [5] . The accuracy of an implant cast depends on many factors: the impression material, impression technique, angulation at which the implant is placed, accuracy of dental stone and master cast technique [15,16,21] . With the use of implants having an internal connection there is a reported decrease in the accuracy of impressions with an increase in the angulation of implants [22] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of different impression techniques for multiple implants angulated to each other: An in vitro study

Kheur¹,

Lakha²,

Sandhu³

et al. 2020

Int. J. Appl. Dent. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim and objective: To evaluate the accuracy of different impression techniques -namely the closed tray impression technique, the open tray non-splinted impression technique, the open tray splinted technique and an experimental technique for multiple implants placed at an angulation with each other. Materials and Methods:A master model was made of die stone which incorporated four implants having an internal hexagonal connection. The two terminal implants were placed at an angle of 20 degrees (lingually) whereas the two central implants were placed perpendicular to the cast. The samples were divided into four groups (Group I: Closed tray impression technique, Group II: Open tray impression technique non-splinted, Group III: Open tray impression technique splinted and Group IV: Experimental technique) based on the impression technique used. P-values were obtained using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey's correction for multiple group comparisons. Results: The P-value was greater than 0.05 (0.869) for Group III. Therefore, open tray splinted technique (Group III) was the most accurate impression technique when compared to the other techniques. On Inter -group comparisons it was noted that the values obtained by experimental technique were within close range of the values obtained by open tray splinted impression technique. Whereas, a comparison of Group I with Group III revealed 2 points of statistical significance (2 points of inaccuracy). Comparison of the Group II with Group III showed that all the points were statistically significant (all points were inaccurate). Conclusion:The open tray splinted impression technique provides best results for multiple implants placed at varying angulations. The experimental technique can be beneficial in areas of limited access, reduced mouth opening and exaggerated gag reflex.

show abstract

Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Plastic Transfer Impression Copings for Three Implant Systems

Cited by 26 publications

References 23 publications

Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Implant Impression Approach: A Three-Dimensional Comparative In Vitro Analysis

Accuracy of different impression techniques for multiple implants angulated to each other: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About