Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions


Rutkunas, V; Gedrimiene, A; Adaskevicius, R; Al-Haj Husain, N; Özcan, M (2020). Comparison of the Clinical Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Dental Implant Impressions. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry, 28(4):173-181.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions. Two types of implant impressions were made for each case, namely a conventional open-tray impression and a digital implant impression (DII) using a Trios IOS. Master casts were scanned using a D800 laboratory scanner and STL files were retrieved from conventional and digital workflows to be exported for comparison. The distance between center points, angulation, rotation, vertical shift, and surface mismatch of the scan bodies were evaluated and compared between conventional and digital impression techniques. Comparing digital and conventional impression techniques the following factors showed statistically significant differences: distance (73.7±75 μm), angulation (0.42±0.3°), and surface mismatch of scan bodies. The difference in conventional and digital impression techniques as regards to angulation and distance between the implants were associated with distance, angle, and vertical shift differences in scan. The mismatch of the scanned surface of scan bodies was twice higher for the intraoral scanner group. Clinicians should therefore control the implant suprastructures clinically and also using casts (e.g. printed casts) when a digital scan is planned.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions. Two types of implant impressions were made for each case, namely a conventional open-tray impression and a digital implant impression (DII) using a Trios IOS. Master casts were scanned using a D800 laboratory scanner and STL files were retrieved from conventional and digital workflows to be exported for comparison. The distance between center points, angulation, rotation, vertical shift, and surface mismatch of the scan bodies were evaluated and compared between conventional and digital impression techniques. Comparing digital and conventional impression techniques the following factors showed statistically significant differences: distance (73.7±75 μm), angulation (0.42±0.3°), and surface mismatch of scan bodies. The difference in conventional and digital impression techniques as regards to angulation and distance between the implants were associated with distance, angle, and vertical shift differences in scan. The mismatch of the scanned surface of scan bodies was twice higher for the intraoral scanner group. Clinicians should therefore control the implant suprastructures clinically and also using casts (e.g. printed casts) when a digital scan is planned.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics

Altmetrics

Downloads

4 downloads since deposited on 27 Jan 2021
4 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 of Reconstructive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > General Medicine
Language:English
Date:30 November 2020
Deposited On:27 Jan 2021 10:12
Last Modified:28 Jan 2021 21:01
Publisher:Mosby-Year Book Europe
ISSN:0965-7452
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_02028Rutkunas09
PubMed ID:32673469

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members