Will Digital Impressions Eliminate the Current Problems With Conventional Impressions?

Christensen, Gordon J.

doi:10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258

Cited by 126 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] The accuracy of intraoral impressions is especially critical for fabricating well-fitting restorations. 4,10,11 Two factors influence the accuracy: trueness, which describes the deviation of the impression geometry from the original geometry, and precision, which describes the deviation between repeated impressions rather than to the original geometry (ISO 5725-1). 11,12 Precision reflects the degree of deviation between impressions within a test group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,21 The past 30 years have seen the development of the digital intraoral impression technique. 6,10,[27][28][29] This method replicates the intraoral situation using a 3-dimensional (3D) camera to capture the data in a digital format. Restorations can then be directly produced by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) software and computer numerical control (CNC) milling machines.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

Ender

Attin

Mehl

2016

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

427

437

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Digital impression systems have undergone significant development in recent years, but few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo, particularly compared with conventional impression techniques. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vivo study was to investigate the precision of conventional and digital methods for complete-arch impressions. MA-TERIAL AND METHODS: Complete-arch impressions were obtained using 5 conventional (polyether, POE; vinylsiloxanether, VSE; direct scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES; digitized scannable vinylsiloxanether, VSES-D; and irreversible hydrocolloid, ALG) and 7 digital (CEREC Bluecam, CER; CEREC Omnicam, OC; Cadent iTero, ITE; Lava COS, LAV; Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; 3Shape Trios, TRI; and 3Shape Trios Color, TRC) techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (n=15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value. RESULTS: The precision ranged from 12.3 m (VSE) to 167.2 m (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials. techniques. Impressions were made 3 times each in 5 participants (n = 15). The impressions were then compared within and between the test groups. The cast surfaces were measured point-to-point using the signed nearest neighbor method. Precision was calculated from the (90%-10%)/2 percentile value.Results. The precision ranged from 12.3 µm (VSE) to 167.2 µm (ALG), with the highest precision in the VSE and VSES groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly according to the impression method. Conventional impressions showed the highest accuracy across the complete dental arch in all groups, except for the ALG group.Conclusions. Conventional and digital impression methods differ significantly in the complete-arch accuracy. Digital impression systems had higher local deviations within the 2 complete arch cast; however, they achieve equal and higher precision than some conventional impression materials. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONSThe accuracy of complete-arch impression casts differs significantly between conventional techniques and digital impression systems. Local deviations are greater in casts generated using digital impression systems; however, digital systems show adequate accuracy across the complete arch. As digital impression systems continue to improve, they may prove to be an equivalent or better alternative to convent...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

Ender

Attin

Mehl

2016

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

427

437

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, registration of the interocclusal relationship without placing impression material inside the patient's mouth reduces the possibility of eccentric movements. The accuracy of dental impressions is particularly crucial in restorative dentistry [1,20,21]. To date, few investigations have addressed the impression accuracy of digital impressions in vivo [22], although several in vitro studies have described the accuracy of digital impression [15,16,23,24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES Quadrant impressions are commonly used as alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI, and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90 1 0value.T hevaluesf oralltestgroupswerestatisticallycompared.RESU LT ST heprecisionrangedf rom18.8(CI) ABSTRACTObjectives: Quadrant impressions are a commonly used alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques Materials and Methods: Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90_10 value. The values for all test groups were statistically compared. Results: The precision ranged from 18.8 µm (CI) to 58.5 µm (T-Tray), with the highest precision in the CI, T-Def, BC4.0, TRC, and TRI groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly depending on the impression method. Impression systems with single-shot capture exhibited greater deviations at the tooth surface whereas high-frame-rate impression systems differed more in gingival areas. Triple tray impressions displayed higher local deviation at the occlusal contact areas of upper and lower jaw. Conclusions:Digital quadrant impression methods achieve a level of precision, comparable to conventional impression techniques. However there are significant differences in terms of absolute values and deviation pattern.Clinical Relevance: With all tested digital impression sys...

show abstract

“…Внутриротовое цифровое сканирование становится все более актуальным [1]. Число производителей интра-оральных сканеров неуклонно растет [2].…”

Section: ортопедический разделunclassified

Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems

Ryakhovskiy

Kostyukova

2016

Stomat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Will Digital Impressions Eliminate the Current Problems With Conventional Impressions?

Cited by 126 publications

References 7 publications

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

Comparative analysis of 3D data accuracy of single tooth and full dental arch captured by different intraoral and laboratory digital impression systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About