Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Chochlidakis, Konstantinos; Papaspyridakos, Panos; Geminiani, Alessandro; Chen, Chun‐Jung; Feng, I‐Jung; Ercoli, Carlo

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017

Cited by 281 publications

(226 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

215

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies and literature reviews have demonstrated that IOS can be a reliable tool for taking impressions of single and multiple abutments in dentate patients [12–15, 37]. However, only a few studies have dealt with the use of IOS in oral implantology [7, 9, 10, 27, 28], and still there is no sufficient evidence on the possibility of using IOS to take impressions for long-span restorations [38–40], or in the case of fully edentulous patients [25, 39].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This can be considered a limitation of this study [19]. In fact, the currently available literature on dentate patients has clearly evidenced how the scanning of single teeth and/or quadrants/sextants is more accurate than that of complete arches [14, 15, 37]. In fact, still the latter procedure seems to have issues, probably due to an accumulation of registration errors of the patched 3D surfaces; consequently, the fabrication of complete fixed full arches remains a challenge, when data are directly acquired with IOS [15, 37].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First of all, it is an in vitro study: therefore, the important results obtained here should be necessarily translated into the clinical setting, and validated in vivo, where there are additional factors that can degrade the quality of a scan (such as saliva, blood, limited mouth opening and movements of the patient) [3, 22, 37]. Second, although latest generation and very powerful, the scanner used here as a reference was an optical desktop scanner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Imburgia¹,

Logozzo

Hauschild³

et al. 2017

BMC Oral Health

271

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundUntil now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants.MethodsTwo gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out.ResultsIn the PEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (45.8 ± 1.6μm), followed by Trios3® (50.2 ± 2.5μm), Omnicam® (58.8 ± 1.6μm) and TrueDefinition® (61.4 ± 3.0μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and Trios3®, CS3600® and Omnicam®, CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and Omnicam®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®. In the FEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (60.6 ± 11.7μm), followed by Omnicam® (66.4 ± 3.9μm), Trios3® (67.2 ± 6.9μm) and TrueDefinition® (106.4 ± 23.1μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®. For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM. In the PEM, TrueDefinition® had the best precision (19.5 ± 3.1μm), followed by Trios3® (24.5 ± 3.7μm), CS3600® (24.8 ± 4.6μm) and Omnicam® (26.3 ± 1.5μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. In the FEM, Trios3® had the best precision (31.5 ± 9.8μm), followed by Omnicam® (57.2 ± 9.1μm), CS3600® (65.5 ± 16.7μm) and TrueDefinition® (75.3 ± 43.8μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. For CS3600®, For CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no significant differences were found for Trios3®.ConclusionsSignificant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. These findings may have important clinical implications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Imburgia¹,

Logozzo

Hauschild³

et al. 2017

BMC Oral Health

271

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently newer digital impression systems have proven to be more accurate for not only smaller cases but also larger and more complex cases when compared to conventional elastomeric impressions . Furthermore, digital impressions can be faster and shorten operation time compared to conventional elastomeric impression materials .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A novel technique for reference point generation to aid in intraoral scan alignment

Renne

Evans

Mennito

et al. 2017

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Composite resin dots on keratinized tissue were successful at allowing accurate merging of provisional restoration and post-preparation 3D models for the purpose of using the provisional restorations as a guide for final CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Composite resin dots placed temporarily on attached tissue were successful at allowing accurate merging of the provisional restoration 3D models to the preparation 3D models for the purposes of using the provisional restorations as a guide for final restoration design and manufacturing. In this case, they allowed precise superimposition of the 3D models made in the absence of any other hard tissue reference points, resulting in the fabrication of ideal final restorations.

show abstract

“…But STL files can also be obtained directly from the patient’s mouth taking a digital impression with an intraoral digital scanner (7-9). Several intraoral digital scanners are available to clinicians; they are based on different technologies for information capture including wavefront sampling technology, confocal microscopy technology, or active triangulation technology with blue light (10,11). These devices not only capture data, but can also perform comparative analysis of different STL files by means of the best-fit-method, using software installed in the scanning unit itself.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo evaluation of three-dimensional of volumetric changes using a CAD/CAM chair-side system: Technical procedure

Agustín-Panadero¹,

Ferreiroa²,

Pascual-Moscardó³

et al. 2017

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An intraoral digital scanner in combination with specialized three-dimensional surface analysis software monitors volumetric changes to soft tissues or dental restorations. This technology can evaluate the success of a specific technique or medium- or long-term clinical outcomes in both clinical and research situations. This article describes how this technology was used to provide immediate chair-side data analysis without the help of specialized laboratory support. Key words:Intraoral scanner, CAD-CAM, best fit-method, surface tessellation language.

show abstract

Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 281 publications

References 35 publications

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

A novel technique for reference point generation to aid in intraoral scan alignment

In vivo evaluation of three-dimensional of volumetric changes using a CAD/CAM chair-side system: Technical procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About