Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level

Chew, Amelia Anya Qin'An; Esguerra, Roxanna Jean; Teoh, Khim Hean; Wong, Kin Mun; Ng, Simon D; Tan, Kong-Bing

doi:10.11607/jomi.4942

Cited by 43 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…the design and fabrication of short-span, implant-supported bridges composed of 3–4 elements). This is in accordance with the current literature [7, 9, 10, 27, 28]. Moreover in our present work, statistically significant differences were found in this application between different IOS (CS3600® was significantly better than Trios3®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®; and Trios3® was significantly better than Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…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%

“…Only a few studies have compared the trueness and precision of different IOS [20, 22–24, 26–28] and most of these focused their attention on fully dentate models [20, 22–24], whereas scientific evidence on the performance of different devices in oral implantology is rather weak [19, 26–28]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The available studies mostly report on first-generation scanners [20, 23–26], and do not deal with the most powerful and recent devices: scientific literature is not as fast as the industry. Moreover, only a few studies have compared the ability of different IOS to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants [19, 26–28]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 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

286

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

286

375

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Deviation in this study was 27.43 ± 13.47 μm, which was within the threshold of clinical acceptance and also in accordance with 19 and 33 um deviation in two in vitro studies of complete edentulous patients with the same scanner and 64 μm deviation from partially edentulous models of two implants . Several clinical cases reports have applied the intraoral scanner to fabricate multi‐implant‐supported framework and indicated the potential possibility to use digital impression as a clinical routine …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: A pilot clinical study with 1‐year follow‐up

Jiang

Lin

Cui

et al. 2019

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Complete digital workflow attracts more attention in implant dentistry. Objectives To explore the feasibility and short‐term clinical results of immediate loading of multiple implants with fixed temporary bridges (2‐4 teeth span) by complete digital workflow, and to evaluate the three‐dimensional (3D) deviation of digital impression comparing with traditional impression method. Material and Methods A total of 31 partial edentulous patients (16 females and 15 males) were recruited in this study. Digital impressions were taken immediately after implant placement, and implant‐supported splinted temporary bridges were fabricated through a full digital approach (model free) and delivered within 24 hours. Final restorations were finished 4 months after surgery via traditional impression technique. Subjects were followed 1 year after treatment. 3D impression deviations were analyzed by comparing the digital and conventional impression methods. Time costs for the full digital approach were recorded. Implant survival rate, marginal bone levels were evaluated. Results All the recruited subjects finished this study. Seventy‐four implants were surgically placed and immediately loaded with 34 temporary bridges fabricated through a full digital approach. Digital impression deviation compared with traditional impression method was 27.43 ± 13.47 μm. Time costs for chair side and laboratory were 32.55 ± 4.73 and 69.30 ± 10.87 minutes, respectively. Marginal bone alterations were −1.58 mm and −1.69 mm at the time of 4 and 12 months after surgery. The implants had a survival rate of 100% at the 1‐year follow‐up time. Conclusions Immediate loading of multiple implants in partial edentulous (2‐4 teeth span) patients with full digital approach is clinically applicable. The 3D discrepancy between digital and traditional impression is within clinical acceptable range.

show abstract

Implant Rehabilitation for Missing Adjacent Teeth in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone

2022

Clinical Cases in Periodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level

Cited by 43 publications

References 0 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

Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: A pilot clinical study with 1‐year follow‐up

Implant Rehabilitation for Missing Adjacent Teeth in the Maxillary Esthetic Zone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About