Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions

Matta, Ragai Edward; Adler, Werner; Wichmann, Manfred; Heckmann, Siegfried M.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.026

Cited by 34 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure shows an example of the measuring points in the center of the planes of the superimposed virtual master model and digital impression. Comparable methods were established previously . Deviations along all three axes (x, y, and z), as well as the Euclidean distance (dXYZ), were calculated and documented in every case and for each of the three integrated implants.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both processes have specific advantages and disadvantages. The conventional procedure is based on decades of experience and refined procedures, though mistakes still occur in the context of implant dentistry, such as displacement of scan abutments or dental stone expansion . The digital workflow has advantages in reproducibility and quality standardization, but one main disadvantage is that deviations in the digital impression can lead to clinically unacceptable errors …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CAD/CAM technology predominates the production process, as better quality control can be delivered with less time and material expenditure than conventional production (lost‐wax fabrication method), and can therefore be regarded as very well established. A highly precise virtual model is necessary for a passive fit and outcome for implant‐based prostheses on the CAD/CAM side . The virtual model can be obtained by scanning either a plaster model or the physical impression made using a conventional impression method.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various studies of conventional impression techniques have discussed the open tray technique and closed technique. In this context, the open tray technique, has been shown to be superior to the closed tray technique . Furthermore, the kind of impression material, implant level, implant angulation, and transfer copings influence the accuracy of the conventional impression .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study aims to evaluate whether the geometries of the different scan bodies and the scan strategy employed affect the accuracy of a digital intraoral impression of inserted implants. The evaluation method used was already established in earlier studies and works with an industrial noncontact scanner . The null hypothesis was that the accuracy of digital impressions does not differ based on the geometry of the scan bodies or the scan strategy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study

Motel

Kirchner

Adler

et al. 2019

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Sufficient data are not currently available on how the various geometries of scan bodies and different scan strategies affect the quality of digital impressions of implants. The purpose of this study was to present new data on these two topics and give clinicians a basis for decision making. Materials and Methods: A titanium master model containing three Nobelreplace Select TM implants (Nobelbiocare Services AG, Zurich, Switzerland) was digitized using an ATOS industrial noncontact scanner. Digitization was repeated three times with different types of scan bodies integrated into the implants: ELOS A/S, nt-trading GmbH, and TEAMZIEREIS GmbH. These three scans served as virtual master models. The titanium master model was then scanned with the TRIOS3 C digital intraoral scanner (ELOS A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), which was used for two different scanning strategies. Strategy A was a one-step procedure that included both the titanium master model and the integrated scan bodies. Strategy B comprised two steps. First, a digital overlay was performed with a scan of the titanium master model without integrated scan bodies. A second scan was performed with the titanium master model and integrated scan bodies. By repeating both strategies 10 times for each type of scan body, 60 scans were generated and the corresponding standard tessellation language data sets overlaid with the corresponding virtual master model. Deviations in the resulting superimpositions were calculated and evaluated separately in the individual axes (x, y, z) and in three-dimensional space (Euclidean distance). Statistical evaluation was performed using the R-project software. Level of significance was determined at p ࣘ 0.05. Results: With regard to the geometry of the scan bodies, strategy A significantly influenced the accuracy of the digital implant impression in regards to Euclidean distance (p = 0.003). No significant difference was found for strategy B in this context. Comparing the two scan strategies revealed that strategy A achieved significantly higher accuracy overall (p = 0.031). Conclusion: The quality of digital intraoral impressions seems to be influenced by both the geometry of the scan body and the scan strategy. For clinical practice, the one-step scan strategy seems beneficial. Furthermore, the scan bodies of ELOS A/S showed a potential clinical advantage.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations