Bock NC, Klaus K, Liebel MM, Ruf S, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. What to Prefer in Patients with Multibracket Appliances? Digital vs. Conventional Full-Arch Impressions-A Reference Aid-Based In Vivo Study.
J Clin Med 2023;
12:jcm12093071. [PMID:
37176511 PMCID:
PMC10179177 DOI:
10.3390/jcm12093071]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2023] [Revised: 04/17/2023] [Accepted: 04/20/2023] [Indexed: 05/15/2023] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the transfer accuracy and required time for digital full-arch impressions obtained from intraoral scanners (IOSs) versus conventional alginate impressions (CAIs) in patients with multibracket appliances (MBA). Thirty patients with buccal MBAs (metal brackets, archwire removed) were examined using an established reference aid method. Impression-taking using four IOSs (Primescan, Trios 4, Medit i700, Emerald S) and one CAI with subsequent plaster casting were conducted. One-hundred-twenty (n = 30 × 4) scans were analyzed with 3D software (GOM Inspect) and 30 (n = 30 × 1) casts were assessed using a coordinate measurement machine. Six distances and six angles were measured and compared to the reference aid values (ANOVA; p < 0.05). Except for the intermolar distance, transfer accuracy was significantly higher with IOSs than with CAIs (p < 0.05). No such difference was found regarding the six angles. In patients with MBAs, digital impression-taking using IOSs can be recommended. For all measured variables except one, the transfer accuracy of IOSs was better than or at least equivalent to the data from CAIs. In addition, significantly (p < 0.001) less time was necessary for all IOSs in comparison to CAIs plus plaster casting.
Collapse