Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an <i>in vitro</i> study

Vandeweghe, Stefan; Vervack, Valentin; Dierens, Melissa; Bruyn, Hugo De

doi:10.1111/clr.12853

Cited by 170 publications

(209 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A study with a six‐implant edentulous mandibular scenario reported that the TRIOS and True Definition scanner were more accurate than Omnicam, but there was no conventional control group (Vandeweghe et al. ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An in vitro study with a six‐implant edentulous mandibular scenario reported that the TRIOS and True Definition scanners were more accurate than Omnicam, but there was no conventional control group (Vandeweghe et al. ). An in vitro study with a six‐implant edentulous maxilla scenario and True Definition scanner reported that it provides clinically acceptable results, but there was no conventional control group as well (Gimenez‐Gonzalez et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digital vs. conventional full‐arch implant impressions: a comparative study

Amin

Weber

Finkelman

et al. 2016

Clinical Oral Implants Res

188

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital vs. conventional full‐arch implant impressions: a comparative study

Amin

Weber

Finkelman

et al. 2016

Clinical Oral Implants Res

188

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using the program N Query Advisor 4.0 with a level of significance of 0.05 and four study groups, based on the article of Vandeweghe S et al [26] and a power of 80%, we obtained a value of six participants per group ( n = 6). Given that there was the possibility that the standard deviation of our work was a little wider, we decided to raise the number the number of participants to n = 10; As it is an in vitro study, there were no patients exposed to unnecessary risks, and it could be safely increased from 6 to 10, in order to improve the reliability and precision of the results.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study

Ribeiro

Herrero-Climent

Díaz-Castro

et al. 2018

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental impressions with the accuracy of impressions obtained via conventional techniques. Methods: Two different master models were created, one with parallel implants (model 1) and the other with non-parallel implants (model 2). These reference master models included 4 Klockner KL RP implants (Klockner Implant System SA, Barcelona, Spain), which were juxta-placed and equidistant in the intermentoneal region. In model 1 the implants were placed parallel to each other, whereas in model 2 the implants were placed such that there was a divergence angle of 15° between the more distal implants, and a convergence angle of 15° between the two central implants. A total of four types of impressions were obtained from model 1 (four groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression groups for dragging copings, without splinting; open tray impressions for ferrules; and impressions obtained using the 3MTM True Definition Scanner system. For model 2 three groups were created (three groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression for dragging copings, without splinting; and impressions obtained using the 3MTM True Definition Scanner system. The master models and the models obtained using conventional methods were digitalized in order to compare them via an extraoral high-resolution scanner (Imetric IScan D104i, Porretruy, Switzerland). The STL (Stereo Lithography (format for transferring 3 dimensional shape information)) digital values were loaded into reverse-engineering software and superimposed with their respective STL master models in order to evaluate deviations in three dimensions. We then analyzed the squares of the deviations in the three axes and evaluated the median and the sum of the deviation square. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. The normality of the distributions was analyzed according to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The median comparison was performed using the differences between the medians, analyzed using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: For model 1, the deviations of the digital impressions were smaller than those associated with the conventional techniques. The sum value in group D was 1,068,292, which was significantly lower than those of groups A, B, and C, which were shown to be 2,114,342, 2,165,491, and 1,265,918, respectively. This improvement was not observed when using model 2, however, where the conventional techniques yielded similar results. Group F simultaneously presented the lowest total square sum of the three deviations (1,257,835), indicating a significantly higher accuracy for this group in model 2, while the sum values were 1,660,975 and 1,489,328 for groups E and G, respectively. Conclusion: Digital impressions of full-arch models were abl...

show abstract

“…Because the scanbody is in the form of a straight rod, soft tissue may collapse during and after fastening the scanbody in the oral cavity; this may result in changes in the soft‐tissue profile . In addition, incorrect fastening of the scanbody might reduce the accuracy of the prosthesis . Moreover, it is cumbersome to perform 2 scans: one without connecting the scanbody, required to obtain the soft‐tissue profile of the implant; and one after the scanbody is connected, required to record the position of the implant.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Scanned Stock Abutments Using Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Kim

Hong

Kang

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To determine the accuracy of a digital manufacturing method for dental implant restorations on stock abutments using intraoral scanners and prefabricated stock‐abutment libraries. Materials and Methods Two dental implants with internal hexagonal connections were placed in the mandibular second premolar and second molar areas of a partially edentulous dentoform model; stock abutments with a diameter of 5 mm, abutment height of 5.5 mm, and gingival cuff height of 2 mm were connected. The study model was scanned 10 times using a reference tabletop scanner and 5 types of intraoral scanners (IOSs). The data collected by 5 types of IOSs were divided into 3 groups, based on the type and matching of stock abutment library data: no library, optical library, and contact library groups. A total of 160 data files were analyzed, including reference data. The resulting data were used to evaluate trueness and precision. Results Trueness and precision values in the group in which library data of the stock abutment were not used were 42.0 to 76.3 µm and 30.5 to 99.7 µm; corresponding values when the library data using an optical scanner were matched were 51.2 to 73.4 µm and 26.3 to 62.8 µm, and those when contact scanner library data were used were 30.1 to 62.4 µm and 15.5 to 55.9 µm. Thus, the accuracy of the contact library group was significantly higher than the accuracies of the no library (p < 0.001) and optical library groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion The application of prefabricated library data of stock abutments using a contact scanner improved the accuracy of scan data. Scan accuracy of the stock abutments differed significantly based on the type of scanner.

show abstract

Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study

Abstract: Based on the findings of this in vitro study, the 3M True Definition and Trios scanner demonstrated the highest accuracy. The Lava COS was found not suitable for taking implant impressions for a cross-arch bridge in the edentulous jaw.

Cited by 170 publications

References 34 publications

Digital vs. conventional full‐arch implant impressions: a comparative study

Digital vs. conventional full‐arch implant impressions: a comparative study

Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of Scanned Stock Abutments Using Different Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About