Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth


Giménez, Beatriz; Özcan, Mutlu; Martínez-Rus, Francisco; Pradíes, Guillermo (2014). Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 29(4):853-862.

Abstract

PURPOSE To evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal red laser technology, taking into consideration clinical parameters such as operator experience and angulation and depth of implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS A maxillary master model with six implants (located bilaterally in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions) was fitted with six polyether ether ketone scan bodies. One second premolar implant was placed with 30 degrees of mesial angulation; the opposite implant was positioned with 30 degrees of distal angulation. The lateral incisor implants were placed 2 or 4 mm subgingivally. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed intraoral scanning. Five different interimplant distances were then measured. The files obtained from the scans were imported with reverse-engineering software. Measurements were then made with a coordinate measurement machine, with values from the master model used as reference values. The deviations from the actual values were then calculated. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and the effects of different implant angulations and depths were compared statistically. RESULTS Overall, operator 3 obtained significantly less accurate results. The angulated implants did not significantly influence accuracy compared to the parallel implants. Differences were found in the amount of error in the different quadrants. The second scanned quadrant had significantly worse results than the first scanned quadrant. Impressions of the implants placed at the tissue level were less accurate than implants placed 2 and 4 mm subgingivally. CONCLUSIONS The operator affected the accuracy of measurements, but the performance of the operator was not necessarily dependent on experience. Angulated implants did not decrease the accuracy of the digital impression system tested. The scanned distance affected the predictability of the accuracy of the scanner, and the error increased with the increased length of the scanned section.

Abstract

PURPOSE To evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal red laser technology, taking into consideration clinical parameters such as operator experience and angulation and depth of implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS A maxillary master model with six implants (located bilaterally in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions) was fitted with six polyether ether ketone scan bodies. One second premolar implant was placed with 30 degrees of mesial angulation; the opposite implant was positioned with 30 degrees of distal angulation. The lateral incisor implants were placed 2 or 4 mm subgingivally. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed intraoral scanning. Five different interimplant distances were then measured. The files obtained from the scans were imported with reverse-engineering software. Measurements were then made with a coordinate measurement machine, with values from the master model used as reference values. The deviations from the actual values were then calculated. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and the effects of different implant angulations and depths were compared statistically. RESULTS Overall, operator 3 obtained significantly less accurate results. The angulated implants did not significantly influence accuracy compared to the parallel implants. Differences were found in the amount of error in the different quadrants. The second scanned quadrant had significantly worse results than the first scanned quadrant. Impressions of the implants placed at the tissue level were less accurate than implants placed 2 and 4 mm subgingivally. CONCLUSIONS The operator affected the accuracy of measurements, but the performance of the operator was not necessarily dependent on experience. Angulated implants did not decrease the accuracy of the digital impression system tested. The scanned distance affected the predictability of the accuracy of the scanner, and the error increased with the increased length of the scanned section.

Statistics

Citations

16 citations in Web of Science®
19 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

2 downloads since deposited on 13 Nov 2014
0 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2014
Deposited On:13 Nov 2014 12:22
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 18:30
Publisher:Quintessence Publishing
ISSN:0882-2786
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3343
PubMed ID:25032765

Download