Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all‐on‐four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the accuracy of digitizing conventional impressions to intraoral surface scans for all‐on‐four treatment in the maxillary arch.Materials and methodsAn edentulous maxillary arch model with four implants placed in an all‐on‐four design was fabricated. Intraoral surface scans (n = 10) were obtained using an intraoral scanner after scan body insertion. For conventional polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the model, implant copings were inserted into the implant fixation for implant level, opened tray impressions (n = 10). The model and conventional impressions were digitized to obtain digital files. A reference file was created using a laboratory‐scanned conventional standard tessellation language (STL) file with analog to scan the body using exocad software. STL datasets from the two digital and conventional impression groups were superimposed with reference files to assess the 3D deviations. Two‐way ANOVA and paired‐samples t‐test was performed to assess the difference in trueness and examine the effects of impression technique and implant angulation on the deviation amount.ResultsNo significant differences were found between the conventional impression and intraoral surface scan groups F(1, 76) = 2.705, p = 0.104. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and digital straight implants and between conventional and digital tilted implants F(1, 76) = .041, p = 0.841. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and conventional tilted implants p = 0.07 and between digital straight and digital tilted implants p = 0.08.ConclusionDigital scans were more accurate than conventional impressions. The digital straight implants were more accurate than the conventional straight implants, and the digital tilted implants were more accurate than the conventional tilted implants, with higher accuracy for digital straight implants.

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

“…These point clouds and meshes are aligned and fused, culminating in a 3D reconstruction of the scanned object (Marques et al., 2021; Zimmermann et al., 2015). Consistent with preceding studies, our research found no significant differences in the overall 3D deviation between the IOS and CI techniques (Marshaha et al., 2023; Papaspyridakos et al., 2016). Analysis of the individual analogs in the model revealed that at the analog of #10, the angular deviation of the CI group was smaller than the IOS group, with other analogs presenting no significant differences.…”

“…These point clouds and meshes are aligned and fused, culminating in a 3D reconstruction of the scanned object (Marques et al, 2021;Zimmermann et al, 2015). Consistent with preceding studies, our research found no significant differences in the overall 3D deviation between the IOS and CI techniques (Marshaha et al, 2023;Papaspyridakos et al, 2016). ages, and its precision depends on image orientation and camera calibration (Rivara et al, 2016).…”

Influence of scanning protocol on the accuracy of complete‐arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study

“…The use of digital intraoral scans for complete arch digital implant impressions has been widely researched and represents one of the most challenging clinical indications for achieving accuracy due to the lack of hard tissue references (Floriani et al., 2023; Gaikwad et al., 2022; Gómez‐Polo et al., 2022; Kaya & Bilmenoglu, 2022; Kernen et al., 2022; Lyu et al., 2022; Marshaha et al., 2023; Papaspyridakos et al., 2016; Sallorenzo & Gómez‐Polo, 2022). The majority of literature on the accuracy of complete‐arch digital intraoral implant impressions report favorable outcomes when assessment is performed under in‐vitro conditions.…”