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

Mangano, Francesco; Bonacina, Matteo; Mandelli, Federico; Marchiori, Fabio

doi:10.1186/s13104-020-05353-2

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is little information in the literature about the accuracy of the latest generation of IOS devices. Most previous studies use edentulous models or a reference model with implants; therefore, they are not comparable with our results [ 42 , 43 ]. In contrast, Trios 3 IOS was introduced in 2015, Medit i500 IOS was established in 2018, and Planmeca Emerald was shown in the dental market in 2017 [ 2 , 44 ].…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions

Schmalzl,

Róth,

Borbély

et al. 2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study is aimed to evaluate the effect of generation change on accuracy of IOSs on full-arch scans and the inter-operator reliability. Methods In this study, 6 different IOS were tested: 3Shape Trios 3 (20.1.2.), 3Shape Trios 4 (20.1.1.), Medit i500 (2.3.6.), Medit i700 (2.4.6.), Planmeca Emerald (6.0.1.) and Planmeca Emerald S (6.0.1.). Eighteen dental students, inexperienced in scanning, took part in this study as operators. Each operator made 10 digital impressions; altogether, 30 impressions were made by each scanner. The 30 STL files were imported to the Geomagic Control X program, where they were compared to a reference STL file; the surface point’s deviation of the full arch and the distance between the second molars’ distobuccal cusps were measured, the inter-operator reliability was also investigated. Results A significant increase in accuracy was found between Trios 3 and 4 in the case of both parameters and between Medit i500 and i700 in the case of full arch. There was no significant difference between Planmeca generations. In case of the inter-operator reliability no significant difference was detected. Conclusion Within this current study’s limitation, it can be concluded that surface digitalization’s accuracy can be modified with generation changes and that digital technology is less technique sensitive than traditional impression taking.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 95%

The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions

Schmalzl,

Róth,

Borbély

et al. 2023

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, to obtain metal frameworks with an optimal fit, it is necessary to incorporate the SI to eliminate the steps that lead to model distortions, related with impression materials, handling, and mold leakage. Based on this and the results of the study by Mangano et al , 33 in which they indicated the use of the solid index for imprisoning the position of the implants in completely edentulous arches, this model was incorporated into the conventional workflow.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PURPOSE To evaluate and compare the effect of impression type (conventional vs digital) and the number of implants on the time from the impressions to the generation of working casts of mandibular implant-supported fixed complete-arch frameworks, as well as on patient satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS 17 participants, 3 or 4 implants, received 2 types of digital impression methods (DI) and conventional (CI). In DI, two techniques were performed: scanning with the scan bodies (SC) and scanning with a device attached to the scan bodies (SD) (BR 10 2019 026265 6). In CI, the making of a solid index (SI) and open-tray impression (OT) were used. The outcomes were used to evaluate the time and the participant satisfaction with conventional and digital impressions. The time was evaluated through the timing of the time obtained in the workflow in the conventional and digital impression. The effect of the number of implants on time was also assessed. Satisfaction was assessed through a questionnaire based on seven. The Wilcoxon test used to identify the statistical difference between the groups in terms of time. The Mann-Whitney test was used to analyze the relationship between the time and the number of implants. Fisher's test was used to assess the patient satisfaction ( P < .05). RESULTS The time with DI was shorter than with CI (DI, x̃=02:58; CI, x̃=31:48) ( P < .0001). The arches rehabilitated with 3 implants required shorter digital impression time (3: x̃=05:36; 4: x̃=09:16) ( P < .0001). Regarding satisfaction, the DI was more comfortable and pain-free than the CI ( P < .005). CONCLUSION Digital impressions required shorter chair time and had higher patient acceptance than conventional impressions.

show abstract

“…At this time, after the resin's polymerization reaction, the copings were unscrewed to obtain the SI models, and then removed from the oral cavity to fix the analogs (Neodent, São Paulo-SP, Brazil) in the copings. This resin pattern was immersed in plaster type IV (Dentsply, Vila Gertrudes, São Paulo, Brazil), 13 and after crystallization, the copings were unscrewed from the model.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 In this context, several impressions techniques have been used for the construction of working models to provide a more precise clinical adjustment of the metal framework. The methods of immobilization of the copings, either by splinting with dental floss followed by acrylic resin, 3,9,[10][11][12] addition silicone, 3 interocclusal registration materials, 3,12 type II plaster, 12 or methods involving rigid materials such as titanium bars 9 and solder index previously projected in 3D on a digitized reference model, 13 produce molds that are more accurate than those obtained by techniques without splinting. Methods for capturing the position of the implants with the solid index proved to be superior to conventional (impression) and digital methods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Methods for capturing the position of the implants with the solid index proved to be superior to conventional (impression) and digital methods. [13][14][15] Numerous in vitro studies have evaluated the influence of impression techniques on the transfer precision of multiple implants, 3,9,[10][11][12] as well as the accuracy and/or precision of digital versus conventional impressions from the axes of the three-dimensional plane. [16][17][18] However, to our knowledge, studies comparing the clinical data between the two techniques for obtaining the implant positions, using the same splinting material and abutment levels, to evaluate the axes on a three-dimensional plane, the distance between the implants, while comparing arches with four and three implants, have not been reported in the literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Solid Index versus Impression for transferring the Position of implants in Mandibular total Edentulous Arches: A Clinical study on trueness

Pereira¹,

Segundo²,

Campos³

et al. 2021

IJAERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the trueness of two techniques for transferring the position of implants, with respect to the angles and distances between them, in completely edentulous arches rehabilitated with 3 and 4 implants. All patients were subjected to 2 impressions techniques: solid index (SI) and conventional impression using the open tray (MC) technique. The cast models were digitized by a laboratory scanner, and the generated STL files were imported into engineering software to measure the axes of the coordinates of the implants and the distances between the implants. The Wilcoxon test was used to identify the differences between the SI and MC groups (p<0.05). The Spearman correlation coefficient was applied to identify the correlation between the coordinate axes and the distances between the implants (p<0.05). When comparing the SI and MC groups, a significant difference was observed in the x-axis of implant #1, for the arches with 3 and 4 implants (p<0.05). As for the distances, a significant difference was observed between implants 1-2 in the arches with 4 implants (p<0.05). No correlation was identified between the two dependent variables. The SI, as well as the MC, must be developed to obtain a passive adjustment framework. I.The impression techniques and materials, 4,7 impression copings, presence or absence of splinting, as well as the splint material and the number and angulations of the implants 4,8 are factors that affect the transfer precision of the position of the implants to the mold and later to the

show abstract

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

Cited by 11 publications

References 14 publications

The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions

The effect of generation change on the accuracy of full arch digital impressions

Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction

Solid Index versus Impression for transferring the Position of implants in Mandibular total Edentulous Arches: A Clinical study on trueness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About