Three-Dimensional Accuracy of a Digitally Coded Healing Abutment Implant Impression System

Abstract

This assignment applies to all translations of the Work as well as to preliminary display/posting of the abstract of the accepted article in electronic form before publication. If any changes in authorship (order, deletions, or additions) occur after the manuscript is submitted, agreement by all authors for such changes must be on file with the Publisher. An author's name may be removed only at his/her written request. (Note: Material prepared by employees of the US government in the course of their official duties cannot be copyrighted.

The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…Twenty‐four studies focused on the comparison of impression accuracy for parallel and angulated implants. Regardless of various impression techniques, conventional implant impressions of angulated implants were significantly less accurate compared to parallel implants (Akalin, Ozkan, & Ekerim, ; Heidari et al., ; Kurtulmus‐Yilmaz, Ozan, Ozcelik, & Yagiz, ; Mpikos et al., ; Ng, Tan, Teoh, Cheng, & Nicholls, ; Shim, Ryu, Shin, & Lee, ; Siadat, Alikhasi, Beyabanaki, & Rahimian, ; Tsagkalidis, Tortopidis, Mpikos, Kaisarlis, & Koidis, ). However, other studies reported that different implant angulations showed no significant difference in impression accuracy (Calesini et al., ; Ehsani, Siadat, & Alikhasi, ; Hazboun, ; Howell, McGlumphy, Drago, & Knapik, ; Lin, Harris, Elathamna, Abdel‐Azim, & Morton, ).…”

“…Conventional implant impressions were performed with the open tray method (Akalin et al., ; Aldosari, ; Aldosari et al., ; Amin et al., ; de Avila, de Matos Moraes, Castanharo, Del'Acqua, & de Assis Mollo, ; Bergin et al., ; Beyabanaki, Shamshiri, Alikhasi, & Monzavi, ; Buzayan, Baig, & Yunus, ; Di Fiore et al., ; Ehsani et al., ; Geramipanah, Sahebi, Davari, Hajimahmoudi, & Rakhshan, ; Ghahremanloo et al., ; Ghanem, Nassani, Baroudi, & Abdel Fattah, ; Gupta et al., ; Heidari et al., ; Lin et al., ; Marotti et al., ; Ongül et al., ; Ono et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Perez‐Davidi et al., ; Pozzi et al., ; Pujari, Garg, & Prithviraj, ; Selvaraj, Dorairaj, Mohan & Simon, ; Vigolo, Mutinelli, Fonzi & Stellini, ; Vojdani, Torabi, & Ansarifard, ; Zen et al., ), the closed tray method (Abdel‐Azim et al., ; Calesini et al., ; Del'acqua, de Avila, Amaral, Pinelli, & de Assis Mollo, ; Gökçen‐Rohlig et al., ; Ibrahim, Fouad, Elewa, & Mustafa, ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ; Karl et al., ; Lee et al., ; Reddy, Prasad, Vakil, Jain, & Chowdhary, ) or both the open and closed tray methods for comparison of the accuracy (Al Quran et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki, & Kharazifard, ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; de Avila, Barros, Del'Acqua, Castanharo, & Mollo Fde, ; BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Chang, Vahidi, Bae, & Lim, ; Haghi, Shiehzadeh, Nakhaei, Ahrary, & Sabzevari, ; Hazboun, ; Howell et al., ; Karl & Palarie, ; Mpikos et al., ; Nakhaei, Madani, Moraditalab, & Haghi, ; Ng et al., ; Pera et al., ; Rutkunas, Sveikata, & Savickas, ; Sabouhi et al., , ; ...…”

“…Impression materials were polyvinylsiloxane, vinylsiloxanether, polyether or condensation silicone. Polyvinylsiloxane materials were used in 26 studies (Abdel‐Azim et al., ; Al‐Abdullah, Zandparsa, Finkelman, & Hirayama, ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; de Avila et al., , ; BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Beyabanaki et al., ; Calesini et al., ; Del'acqua et al., ; Di Fiore et al., ; Ehsani et al., ; Geramipanah et al., ; Ghahremanloo et al., ; Heidari et al., ; Howell et al., ; Ibrahim et al., ; Lee et al., ; Lin et al., ; Marotti et al., ; Nakhaei et al., ; Ono et al., ; Pozzi et al., ; Sabouhi et al., ; Shim et al., ; Siadat et al., ; Zen et al., ), whereas polyether was used in 22 studies (Al Quran et al., ; Aldosari, ; Aldosari et al., ; Alikhasi, Bassir, & Naini, ; Amin et al., ; Ghanem et al., ; Hazboun, ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ; Karl et al., ; Martínez‐Rus et al., ; Mpikos et al., ; Ng et al., ; Ongül et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Pera et al., ; Perez‐Davidi et al., ; Rashidan, Alikhasi, Samadizadeh, Beyabanaki, & Kharazifard, ; Selvaraj et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Erdelt et al., ; Stimmelmayr, Güth et al., ; Tarib et al., ; Tsagkalidis et al., ; Vigolo et al., ), and vinylsiloxanether and condensation silicone were each used in one study (Eliasson & Ortorp, ). Sixteen studies compared any combination of the aforementioned impression materials (Akalin et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; Buzayan et al., ; Chang et al., …”

“…Splinting of impression copings was studied and compared with nonsplinting of impression copings in numerous studies. Thirty‐two studies used nonsplinted impression copings (Akalin et al., ; Aldosari, ; Aldosari et al., ; Alikhasi et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Calesini et al., ; Ebadian et al., ; Ehsani et al., ; Eliasson & Ortorp, ; Geramipanah et al., ; Ghahremanloo et al., ; Gökçen‐Rohlig et al., ; Haghi et al., ; Howell et al., ; Ibrahim et al., ; Karl & Palarie, ; Karl et al., ; Lee et al., ; Lin et al., ; Marotti et al., ; Mpikos et al., ; Nakhaei et al., ; Ng et al., ; Rashidan et al., ; Reddy et al., ; Sabouhi et al., ; Shim et al., ; Siadat et al., ; Vojdani et al., ; Wegner et al., ), whereas seven studies used splinted impression copings for open tray impressions (Amin et al., ; Bergin et al., ; Di Fiore et al., ; Gupta et al., ; Ono et al., ; Rutkunas et al., ; Selvaraj et al., ) and one study splinted conical transfer copings for closed tray impressions. Twenty‐five studies compared splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques (Al‐Abdullah et al., ; de Avila et al., , ; Beyabanaki et al., ; Buzayan et al., ; Chang et al., ; Del'acqua et al., ; Ghanem et al., ; Hazboun, ; Heidari et al., ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ; Kurtulmus‐Yilmaz et al., ; Martínez‐Rus et al., ; Ongül et al., ; Papaspyridakos et al., ; Pera et al., ; Perez‐Davidi et al., ; Pujari et al.,…”

“…For the assessment of linear and angular distances between implants, reference models and test models were measured with coordinate measuring machines (CMM) (Alikhasi et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, Beyabanaki et al., ; Alikhasi, Siadat, & Rahimian, ; BalaMurugan & Manimaran, ; Bergin et al., ; Beyabanaki et al., ; Buzayan et al., ; Di Fiore et al., ; Ebadian et al., ; Ehsani et al., ; Geramipanah et al., ; Ghahremanloo et al., ; Gupta et al., ; Heidari et al., ; Martínez‐Rus et al., ; Mpikos et al., ; Nakhaei et al., ; Ng et al., ; Rashidan et al., ; Selvaraj et al., ; Shankar et al., ; Siadat et al., ; Tsagkalidis et al., ; Vojdani et al., ; Wegner et al., ). Other authors used microscopes (Akalin et al., ; Aldosari, ; Aldosari et al., ; Chang et al., ; Ghanem et al., ; Haghi et al., ; Ibrahim & Ghuneim, ), digital micrometers (Al Quran et al., ; Tarib et al., ), a profile projector (Vigolo et al., ) or a laser measuring machine (Eliasson & Ortorp, ) to measure implant positions in conventional stone casts and compare them between reference and test models.…”