Comparison of the virtual techniques in registering single implant position with a universal-coordinate system: An in vitro study

Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of conventional polyether impressions and digital scans produced by five intra-oral scanners (IOSs) in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism for long-span implant-supported prostheses.

METHODS

This in vitro study involved the impression of a maxillary model with free-end partial edentulism, in which six implants were placed before digitization using a desktop scanner to generate a digital reference model. Conventional impressions (Impregum Penta Soft, 3M) and digital scans with five IOSs (Trios 3 and 4, 3Shape; Primescan, Dentsply-Sirona; CS 3600, Carestream Dental; and i-500, Medit) were obtained. Conventional impressions were digitized using the same desktop scanner. Each digital STL file of conventional or digital impressions was superimposed over the reference STL file to enable comparison. Trueness was assessed by calculating angles and distance deviations. For precision, dispersions of values around their means were also measured.

RESULTS

The mean distance deviation was significantly higher for conventional impressions (454.24 ± 334.70 µm) than for IOSs (ranging from 160.98 ± 204.48 µm to 255.56 ± 395.89 µm) (p < 0.001). The mean angular deviation was high with conventional impressions (1.82 ± 1.51°), intermediate with CS 3600 (1.38 ± 1.42°), Primescan (1.37 ± 2.54°) and Trios 4 (1.30 ± 0.64°) scanners, and lower with I500 (0.97 ± 0.75°) and Trios 3 (1.01 ± 0.85°) scanners (p < 0.001). The dispersion of distance values around their means was lowest with Trios 3 and i-500, followed by CS3600, Primescan, and Trios 4, respectively, and higher for conventional impressions (p < 0.001). The dispersion of angular values was smallest with i-500, Trios 3, and Trios 4 compared with other groups and was highest with Primescan (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the current study, Trios 3 scanner exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by i-500, Trios 4, CS 3600, Primescan, and conventional impressions respectively. IOSs might be reliable for the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Passive adaptation of the implant-supported framework is a challenge when rehabilitating patients with maxillary free-end partial edentulism. While Conventional impressions remain a reliable and validated technique, but IOSs demonstrated higher accuracy, suitable for the fabrication of long-span implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arch.

A comprehensive review and update on the current state of computer-assisted rehabilitation in implant dentistry

AIM

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the established concepts and newer developments related to computer-assisted implant rehabilitation.

METHODS

Two independent researchers searched the English literature published to 31st December 2023 in the PubMed/Medline database for primary and secondary research and related publications on computer-assisted implant planning, computer-assisted implant placement and computer-assisted implant restoration.

RESULTS

A total of 58,923 papers were identified, 198 relevant papers were read in full text and 110 studies were finally included. Computer-assisted implant rehabilitation was found to result in more precise implant positioning than freehand placement. Advantages include reduced trauma and surgery time; disadvantages include reduced primary implant stability and higher cost.

CONCLUSION

Computer-assisted surgery is particularly indicated in cases of critical anatomy, but may encounter limitations in terms of cost, restricted mouth opening, visibility and adjustment of the surgical guides and the need for prior familiarisation with the procedure. Nonetheless, this surgical technique reduces the post-implant placement complication rate.