Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine

Revilla‐León, Marta; Att, Wael; Özcan, Mutlu; Rubenstein, Jeffrey E.

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.005

Cited by 83 publications

(87 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results for the digital impressions of the present study are comparable to the results of numerous other investigations (Amin et al., 2017; Chew et al., 2017; Flügge et al., 2016; Gedrimiene et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2020; Malik et al., 2018; Moura et al., 2019; Rech‐Ortega et al., 2019; Revilla‐León et al., 2020). In contrast to studies by Renne et al (Renne et al., 2017) and Gimenez et al (Gimenez et al., 2014), no increasing deviations were observed with increasing scan path length.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In principle, comparison with other studies is difficult, as there are currently no clinical studies for which an external reference has been used. Nevertheless, the results of the available data with regard to the conventional impression are comparable to those of other investigations, which also reported deviations of approximately 11 µm to 70 µm (Basaki et al., 2017; Chew et al., 2017; Flügge et al., 2016; Gedrimiene et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2019; Lin et al., 2015; Malik et al., 2018; Menini et al., 2018; Moura et al., 2019; Rech‐Ortega et al., 2019; Revilla‐León et al., 2020; Rutkunas et al., 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key‐based method

Schmidt

Rein²,

Wöstmann

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The objective of this study was to systematically compare the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions in patients using a new reference key‐based method. Material and methods Thirty‐nine cases were included in the study (upper jaw 22 edentulous, 8 partially edentulous, average distance between implants 30.15 ± 11.18 mm; lower jaw 6 cases edentulous, 3 cases partially edentulous, average distance between implants 33.19 ± 14.85 mm). Individual reference keys were manufactured and reversibly fixed on implants. A conventional (CVI) and a digital (DI) implant impression was made. The implant positions (center points) of conventional and digital models were measured (coordinate‐measuring machine/three‐dimensional analysis software) and superimposed with the positions of the reference keys to compare the deviations of the conventional and digital models. For statistical analysis, ANOVA with MIXED procedure was applied (p < .05). Results Mean deviation ranged from 0.040±0.029 mm (DI/upper jaw) to 0.079 ± 0.050 mm (DI/lower jaw). There were significant differences between the CVI and DI impressions in the lower jaw (p < .05). No significant differences in transfer accuracy were found between partially and completely edentulous patients for the impression methods. Conclusions Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that full‐arch digital implant impressions of the upper jaw in partially or completely edentulous patients showed comparable results to conventional implant impressions. However, with regard to the implant position transfer accuracy, there are still limitations for digital impression in the lower jaw.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key‐based method

Schmidt

Rein²,

Wöstmann

et al. 2021

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similar results were obtained by Amin et al [17], Chew et al [48], Flügge et al [49], Rech-Ortega et al [50], and Revilla-León et al [51].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

The Influence of Hard- and Software Improvement of Intraoral Scanners on the Implant Transfer Accuracy from 2012 to 2021: An In Vitro Study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to investigate the transfer accuracy (trueness and precision) of three different intraoral scanning families using different hardware and software versions over the last decade from 2012 to 2021, compared to a conventional impression. Therefore, an implant master model with a reference cube was digitized and served as a reference dataset. Digital impressions of all three scanning families (True definition, TRIOS, CEREC) were recorded (n = 10 per group), and conventional implant impressions were taken (n = 10). The conventional models were digitized, and all models (conventional and digital) were measured. Therefore, it was possible to obtain the deviations between the master model and the scans or conventional models in terms of absolute three-dimensional (3D) deviations, deviations in rotation, and angulation. The results for deviations between the older and newer scanning systems were analyzed using pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05; SPSS 26). The absolute 3D deviations increased with increasing scan path length, particularly for the older hardware and software versions (old vs. new (MW ± SD) True Definition: 355 ± 62 µm vs. 483 ± 110 µm; TRIOS: 574 ± 274 µm vs. 258 ± 100 µm; and CEREC: 1356 ± 1023 µm vs. 110 ± 49 µm). This was also true for deviations in rotation and angulation. The conventional impression showed an advantage only regarding the absolute 3D deviation compared to the older systems. Based on the data of the present study, the accuracy of intraoral scanners is decisively related to hardware and software; though, newer systems or software do not necessarily warrant improvement. Nevertheless, to achieve high transfer accuracy, regular updating of digital systems is recommended. The challenge of increasing errors with increasing scan paths is overcome in the most recent systems. The combination of two different scanning principles in a single device seems to be beneficial.

show abstract

“…Therefore, despite the enormous progress made in the accuracy of the IOSs, difficulties persist in scanning the completely edentulous patient, who needs prosthetic restorations with FA supported by 6 or more fixtures [ 3 – 5 ]. These are determined by the difficulty of the IOS to correctly read the distances between the different SBs, and the spatial and temporal progression of the scan [ 4 – 6 , 14 , 15 ]. SI also allows for control over the quality of the virtual models derived by the IOSs, using high-quality reference machines (CMM or industrial desktop scanners).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it is known from several in vitro studies that different IOSs demonstrate statistically different levels of accuracy [ 1 , 2 , 6 , 14 , 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: in vitro trueness evaluation

Mangano

Bonacina²,

Mandelli³

et al. 2020

BMC Res Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the trueness of a solid index (SI) in the full-arch (FA) implant impression, and to compare it with that of two intraoral scanners (IOSs). A type-IV gypsum model of a completely edentulous patient with 8 implant scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (7Series®) to obtain a reference virtual model (RVM), and with two IOSs (CS 3700® and Emerald S®). Five scans were taken with each IOS. Based on the RVM, an SI (custom tray consisting of hollow cylinders connected by a bar) was fabricated and used to capture a physical impression of the model; from this, a second gypsum model was derived and scanned with a desktop scanner (D15®). The SI-derived and the IOSs-derived models were superimposed onto the RVM, to evaluate trueness. Results The overall mean trueness was 29 μm (± 26) for the SI-derived model, versus 42.4 μm (± 14.7) for CS 3700® and 52.2 μm (± 4.6) for Emerald S®. Despite its limitations (in vitro design, a limited number of models evaluated, RVM captured with a desktop scanner) this study supports the use of SI for FA implant impressions. Further studies are needed to confirm this evidence.

show abstract

Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine

Cited by 83 publications

References 40 publications

A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key‐based method

A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key‐based method

The Influence of Hard- and Software Improvement of Intraoral Scanners on the Implant Transfer Accuracy from 2012 to 2021: An In Vitro Study

Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: in vitro trueness evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About