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

Amin, Sarah; Weber, Hans Peter; Finkelman, Matthew; Rafie, Khaled El; Kudara, Yukio; Papaspyridakos, Panos

doi:10.1111/clr.12994

Cited by 178 publications

(209 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

184

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, we used conventional impressions and subsequent extraoral scanning, aiming at the highest possible in vivo accuracy for our reference data. However, due to improvements in hardware and software, studies have recently shown that direct digitization can be comparable (and, in fact, even slightly higher) in accuracy than indirect digitization (Amin et al, ; Muallah et al, ). Each step in the process of producing and digitizing a definitive cast from a conventional impression is accompanied by some degree of error.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

Hilgenfeld

Juerchott

Deisenhofer

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Guided implant surgery (GIS) requires alignment of virtual models to reconstructions of three‐dimensional imaging. Accurate visualization of the tooth surfaces in the imaging datasets is mandatory. In this prospective clinical study, in vivo tooth surface accuracy was determined for GIS using cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dental magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). Materials and methods CBCT and 3‐Tesla dMRI were performed in 22 consecutive patients (mean age: 54.4 ± 15.2 years; mean number of restorations per jaw: 6.7 ± 2.7). Altogether, 92 teeth were included (31 incisor, 29 canines, 20 premolars, and 12 molars). Surfaces were reconstructed semi‐automatically and registered to a reference standard (3D scans of stone models made from full‐arch polyether impressions). Reliability of both methods was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. Accuracy was evaluated using the two one‐sided tests procedure with a predefined equivalence margin of ±0.2 mm root mean square (RMS). Results Inter‐ and intrarater reliability of tooth surface reconstruction were comparable for CBCT and dMRI. Geometric deviations were 0.102 ± 0.042 mm RMS for CBCT and 0.261 ± 0.08 mm RMS for dMRI. For a predefined equivalence margin, CBCT and dMRI were statistically equivalent. CBCT, however, was significantly more accurate (p ≤ .0001). For both imaging techniques, accuracy did not differ substantially between different tooth types. Conclusion Cone‐beam computed tomography is an accurate and reliable imaging technique for tooth surfaces in vivo, even in the presence of metal artifacts. In comparison, dMRI in vivo accuracy is lower. Still, it allows for tooth surface reconstruction in satisfactory detail and within acceptable acquisition times.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

Hilgenfeld

Juerchott

Deisenhofer

et al. 2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In recent years, some authors have validated the usefulness of intraoral scanners to make digital impressions of crowns or even three‐unit fixed dental prostheses (Ahrberg et al, ; Amin et al, ; Ender, Attin, et al, ; Ender & Mehl, ; Ender, Zimmermann, et al, ; Joda & Brägger, ; Joda et al, ; Pradíes, Zarauz, et al, ; Sakornwimon & Leevailoj, ; Schepke et al, ; Syrek et al, ; Zhang et al, ). However, when the area to be restored, and consequently, the scanning area, grows, the results clearly worsened (Ender, Attin, et al, ; Ender, Zimmermann, et al, ; Flügge et al, ; van der Meer et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have addressed these variables by examining the accuracy of intraoral scanners as follows: in narrow spaces such as those for crowns or bridges (Ahrberg et al, ; Hack & Patzelt, ; Omar Ali, ;Pradíes, Zarauz, Valverde, Ferreiroa, & Martínez‐Rus, ; Syrek et al, ); covering larger parts of the dental arch such as a quadrant (Ender, Zimmermann, Attin, & Mehl, ); and covering the complete arch (Andriessen, Rijkens, Van Der Meer, & Wismeijer, ; Ender, Attin, & Mehl, ; Ender & Mehl, ,; Flügge, Att, Metzger, & Nelson, ; Güth, Edelhoff, Schweiger, & Keul, ; van der Meer, Andriessen, Wismeijer, & Ren, ; Patzelt, Bishti, Stampf, & Att, ; Patzelt, Emmanouilidi, Emmanouilidi, Stampf, Strub, & Att, ; Zhang, Suh, & Lee, ). Although the accuracy values in these studies differ from one case to another, it has been demonstrated that digital impressions are sufficiently accurate in small spaces (Ahrberg et al, ; Amin et al, ; Ender, Attin, et al, ; Ender & Mehl, ; Ender, Zimmermann, et al, ; Joda & Brägger, ; Joda et al, ; Pradíes, Zarauz, et al, ; Sakornwimon & Leevailoj, ; Schepke, Meijer, Kerdijk, & Cune, ; Syrek et al, ; Zhang et al, ), and the improvements implemented in the new versions of the scanners are resulting in improved accuracy (Imburgia et al, ; Mangano et al, ). However, in large spaces with uniform features (with no geometric differentiation in the radius of curvature), such as those typically associated with edentulous patients, the results are less impressive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Accuracy of digital impressions for implant‐supported complete‐arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part—An in vitro study

Iturrate

Eguiraun

2019

Clinical Oral Implants Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of complete‐arch digital impressions for fabrication of an implant‐supported prosthesis in the edentulous maxilla using an auxiliary geometry part. Materials and methods A replica of the upper jaw of an edentulous patient with four scannable impression copings was fabricated in stainless steel. This model was scanned with an industrial non‐contact 3D structured blue light 3D scanner, and the measurements of three reference distances were established as reference values. Subsequently, the model was scanned in two different scenarios (with or without an auxiliary geometry part put in place and fixed to the model) using three intraoral scanners. Measurements were taken with 3D inspection software, and a digital impression of the complete arch was built with mesh processing software by combining 2 STL files obtained with an intraoral scanner. Results All measurements with the auxiliary geometry part gave significantly more accurate results (p < .05). Trueness improved in the three reference distances, reaching values of 8 ± 6 µm at D12 reference distance, 20 ± 11 µm at D13 and 35 ± 22 µm at D14. Precision also improved significantly with the use of the auxiliary geometry part placed on the model (p < .05). The best precision results at reference distances D13 and D14 were obtained with the True Definition Scanner. Conclusions The proposed methodology significantly improves the accuracy of complete‐arch digital impressions in edentulous patients obtained in vitro, regardless of which scanner is used.

show abstract

“…Hence, the decision was made to fabricate working casts from conventional impressions and to subsequently digitize them with a high precision laboratory scanner (Activity 880 scanner). Comparative studies are currently emerging showing that full‐arch digital implant impressions with different IOS such as TRIOS, Omnicam and True Definition scanner have the same or even better accuracy as the conventional ones …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital workflow in full‐arch implant rehabilitation with segmented minimally veneered monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: 2‐year clinical follow‐up

Papaspyridakos

Kang

DeFuria

et al. 2017

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents an integrated digital workflow that was implemented for the implant-prosthodontic rehabilitation of three edentulous patients with monolithic zirconia prostheses. Monolithic zirconia has been successfully incorporated in implant prosthodontics in an effort to reduce the technical complications associated with bilayered ceramics. This workflow simplifies design and fabrication of the zirconia prostheses. However, caution should be taken during CAD planning of the prosthesis to make sure the zirconia cylinder is sufficiently thick at the interface with the titanium insert. Additionally, when cutback is planned for facial porcelain veneering, the functional occluding cusps and incisal edges should be fabricated in monolithic zirconia to avoid chipping.

show abstract

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

Cited by 178 publications

References 22 publications

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

In vivo accuracy of tooth surface reconstruction based on CBCT and dental MRI—A clinical pilot study

Accuracy of digital impressions for implant‐supported complete‐arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part—An in vitro study

Digital workflow in full‐arch implant rehabilitation with segmented minimally veneered monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: 2‐year clinical follow‐up

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About