A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques

Research progress on accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for implant-supported full-arch prostheses

With the rapid development of implant techniques and digital technology, digital impressions have become a commonly used impression method in implant restoration. At present, the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions directly applied to implant-supported full-arch prostheses remains inadequate, which is due to the high accuracy requirement of full-arch implant impressions, while there are still technical challenges in intraoral digital impressions about recognition and stitching. In this regard, scholars have proposed a variety of scanning strategies to improve the accuracy of intraoral scan, including mucosal modifications, auxiliary devices and novel scan bodies. At the same time photogrammetry, as a new digital impression technique, has been developing steadily and exhibits promising accuracy. This article reviews the research progress on the accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impressions and techniques which can improve the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions, to provide reference for clinical application.

Digital comparative analysis in three dimensions of two impression techniques for the bilateral distal extension of partially edentulous mandibular arches: A pilot clinical study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The stability of mandibular removable partial dentures with bilateral distal extensions may be improved with the controlled tissue support achieved by using the altered cast impression technique, although this process is time-consuming and technique-sensitive.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this pilot clinical study was to compare casts generated from a conventional definitive impression with casts generated from an altered cast impression using a 3-dimensional (3D) analysis software program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three partially edentulous participants with mandibular Kennedy Class I were enrolled, and impressions were made with the 2 techniques and poured in stone. The casts were scanned, aligned, and superimposed by using a 3D analysis software program. Surface deviations were measured to evaluate the differences in displacement induced by the impression on the tissue surface. Five observations were made in 4 different areas on each partially edentulous side. Means from these observations were generated, and the Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney tests were performed for all data to assess the differences between the right and left sides in the same participant and among the 3 participants (α=.05).

RESULTS

The casts made from the altered cast impression had an overall mean ±standard deviation displacement of -0.05 ±1.25 mm on the right and left sides of the mandibular buccal shelf area. Moreover, the greatest overall difference of about 0.45 ±0.41 mm occurred on the lingual slope of the residual ridge, and the differences in the other areas were 0.10 ±0.99 mm (crest of the residual ridge) and 0.16 ±0.66 mm (buccal slope of the residual ridge). The overall differences varied statistically between significance and nonsignificance for the same participant and among the 3 participants.

CONCLUSIONS

A digital comparative analysis of the conventional and altered cast methods of recording the bilateral distal extension areas in partially edentulous participants showed that the altered cast method exhibited more displacement on the buccal vestibule or buccal shelf area compared with other examined areas. The differences between the 2 impression methods in the displacement values among the examined areas were minimal and in close proximity, and such differences may lack clinical significance.

A randomized clinical trial comparing the clinical fit and chairside adjustment time for implant-supported crowns fabricated by fully digital and partially digital techniques

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Implant-supported crowns made in both fully and partially digital workflows have been evaluated, but these studies have been mainly performed in vitro. Moreover, data on the comparison of clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns are limited.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical fit and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns produced by a partially and fully digital workflow in partially edentulous participants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-eight participants who had received 2 adjacent implants in posterior sites were enrolled, each receiving 2 custom titanium abutments and a splinted monolithic zirconia restoration. Restorations of the control group (n=14) were produced from a digital scan and a cast-free digital workflow, while the restorations of the test group (n=14) were from a conventional impression and a partially digital workflow. A blinded investigator delivered the restorations. The clinical adjustment was performed incrementally, and a digital chronometer recorded the time required for the evaluation and adjustment at each step. An independent t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and the Fisher exact test were used to evaluate the results (α=.05).

RESULTS

The total mean adjustment time in the control group (12.49 minutes) was significantly longer than that of the test group (11.27 minutes) (P<.001). For the occlusal contact points, significantly less clinical adjustment time was required with the cast-free digital workflow (5.31 minutes) than with the model-based partially digital workflow (6.06 minutes) (P=.001). On other surfaces, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (P>.05). All crowns could be successfully delivered after 2 clinical appointments (impression and delivery). Remakes were not necessary for any restorations in the test or control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The parameters of occlusal adjustment time and total adjustment time of the fully digital workflow were significantly shorter than those of the partially digital workflow.

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Impressions for Determining Axes and Distances of Three Implants in Straight and Curved Lines: An In Vitro Study

Background: In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of conventional and digital impressions on several parameters (inter-implant distance, intra-implant distance, inter-implant axis, and intra-implant axis) of three implants in curved lines and straight lines by using a laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS). Methods: Two 3D models were fabricated using a printer, each model with three internal hex implants analogues at the positions of 15#,16#,17# (straight line) and 12#,13#,14# (curved line). Standard intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs) were used, and the two models were scanned using 7 Series dental wings (LBS, reference model), followed by ten scans with Primescan (digital method). Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files were created. Five polyether impressions were taken from each model (straight and curved), and gypsum type 4 models were poured; each model was scanned five times to create a total of 25 STL files for each group (conventional method). The comparison between all the STL files (conventional and digital) was made by superimposition of the STL files on the STL reference model laboratory file using a 3D analyzing software. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed, followed by Mann-Whitney tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. (p < 0.05). Results: For the conventional method, the mean errors were significantly higher for the curved line model (12-14) compared to the straight line model (15-17) for most parameters (p < 0.05). For the digital method, the mean errors were significantly higher for the curved-line model (12-14) compared to the straight line model (15-17) in half of the parameters (p < 0.05). Within the curved line model (12-14) and the straight line model (15-17), the mean errors between the conventional method and the digital method were not significant for most variables. Conclusions: The difference between curved lines and straight lines has an impact on the mean error of the conventional method. Both methods are reliable for straight and curved lines in partially dentate situations.

Evaluation of Dimensional Change in Different Elastomeric Impression Materials Used in Implants: An Original Research

Aim

The study's objective was to assess the dimensional accuracy of hybrid polyether and polyvinyl siloxane materials for implant impressions.

Materials and Methods

Nine groups were created from 45 samples of various building materials and construction techniques from the study. Five samples were tested, and 45 impressions were recorded.

Results

The hybrid non-splinted technique has improved implant site replication, accuracy, and low interimplant distance alterations.

Conclusion

The finest possible reproduction of implant sites on the master cast was made feasible by the use of an open, non-splinted method and a hybrid polyvinyl siloxane-polyether impression material.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) impressions of implant-supported restorations in in vivo studies.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search and review of studies on the accuracy of IOS implant impressions were conducted to analyze the peer-reviewed literature published between 1989 and August 2023. The bias analysis was performed by two reviewers. Data on the study characteristics, accuracy outcomes, and related variables were extracted. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials was performed to investigate the impact of IOS on peri-implant crestal bone loss and the time involved in the impression procedure.

RESULTS

Ten in vivo studies were included in this systematic review for final analysis. Six studies investigated the trueness of IOS impressions, but did not reach the same conclusions. One study assessed the precision of IOS impressions for a single implant. Four clinical studies examined the accuracy of IOS implant impressions with a follow-up of 1-2 years. In full arches, IOS impression procedure needed significantly less time than conventional one (mean difference for procedure time was 8.59 min [6.78, 10.40 min], P < 0.001), prosthetic survival rate was 100%, and marginal bone levels of all participants could be stably maintained (mean difference in marginal bone loss at 12 months was 0.03 mm [-0.08, 0.14 mm], P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of IOS impressions of implant-supported restorations varied greatly depending on the scanning strategy. The trueness and precision of IOS in the partial and complete arches remain unclear and require further assessment. Based on follow-up clinical studies, IOS impressions were accurate in clinical practice. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as some evidences are obtained from the same research group.

Effect of angulation on the 3D trueness of conventional and digital implant impressions for multi-unit restorations

PURPOSE

The study aimed to determine the influence of implant angulation on the trueness of multi-unit implant impressions taken through different techniques and strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As reference models, three partially edentulous mandibular models (Model 1: No angulation; Model 2: No angulation for #33, 15-degree distal angulation for #35 and #37; Model 3: No angulation for #33, 25-degree distal angulation for #35 and #37) were created by modifying the angulations of implant analogues. Using a lab scanner, these reference models were scanned. The obtained data were preserved and utilized as virtual references. Three intraoral scanning (IOS) strategies: IOS-Omnicam, ISO-Quadrant, and IOS-Consecutive, as well as two traaditional techniques: splinted open tray (OT) and closed tray (CT), were used to create impressions from each reference model. The best-fit alignment approach was used to sequentially superimpose the reference and test scan data. Computations and statistical analysis of angular (AD), linear (LD), and 3D deviations (RMS) were performed.

RESULTS

Model type, impression technique, as well as interaction factor, all demonstrated a significant influence on AD and LD values for all implant locations (P < .05). The Model 1 and SOT techniques displayed the lowest mean AD and LD values across all implant locations. When considering interaction factors, CT-Model 3 and SOT-Model 1 exhibited the highest and lowest mean AD and LD values, respectively. Model type, impression technique, and interaction factor all revealed significant effects on RMS values (P ≤ .001). CT-Model 3 and SOT-Model 1 presented the highest and lowest mean RMS values, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Splinted-OT and IOS-Omnicam are recommended for multi-unit implant impressions to enhance trueness, potentially benefiting subsequent manufacturing stages.

Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported prostheses are technique-sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer an alternative to conventional impression making.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete arch implant scans and to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks fabricated with SPG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Laboratory scanning of gypsum casts, SPG, and IOS were performed for all participants. The data regarding the abutment platform were superimposed to calculate the 3D deviation of SPG and IOS compared with that of laboratory scanning as an evaluation of accuracy. The effect of implant position and number on accuracy was analyzed. The more accurate technique between SPG and IOS was used to fabricate the titanium frameworks, as was laboratory scanning. The passive fit of the frameworks was assessed by clinical examination, the Sheffield test, and panoramic radiography.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants (21 arches, 120 implants) were included. The accuracy of SPG ranged from 2.70 μm to 92.80 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 17.00 (11.68, 22.50) μm, which was significantly more accurate than that of IOS, ranging from 21.30 μm to 815.60 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 48.95 (34.78, 75.88) μm. No significant correlation was found between position or number of implants and 3D deviation in the SPG group. A weak positive correlation was found between implant number and 3D deviation in the IOS group. SPG and laboratory scanning were used to fabricate titanium frameworks. The passive fit between the frameworks and abutment platforms was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

SPG, which was not affected by position or number of implants, was more accurate than IOS and comparable with laboratory scanning. The frameworks fabricated based on SPG and laboratory scanning were comparable in their passive fit. The SPG technique may be an alternative to laboratory scanning for complete arch implant scans.

Intraoral Scan Accuracy and Time Efficiency in Implant-Supported Fixed Partial Dentures: A Systematic Review

The digital implant impression technique (DIT) and conventional implant impression technique (CIT) workflows in implant-supported fixed partial dentures (FPDs) have not been extensively compared in prior studies. Moreover, there is no agreement on the more accurate method that entails less time in the laboratory and during the clinical phases of fabrication and delivery of the prosthesis, respectively. This review aimed to assess the precision of the imaging procedure and overall fabrication time of the DIT and CIT for the implant-supported FPDs. An electronic search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Oral Health Group, and Dentistry and Oral Science Source databases through EBSCO for relevant studies from January 2014 to April 2023. Following the preliminary screening, the studies that met the inclusion criteria underwent full-text review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias appraisal tool and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized prospective clinical studies, respectively. The initial search yielded 332 studies, and after excluding duplicates, 241 papers were available for screening. Titles and abstracts were reviewed, and 97 articles were chosen for full-text review by two authors independently. Furthermore, 89 articles were excluded in compliance with the PICOS question, and eight studies were chosen for qualitative analysis. Hence, the review comprised two RCTs and six prospective clinical studies. The time efficiency of the implant-supported FPDs was examined in four investigations, three of which used the Trios 3 scanner and one used the Intero scanner. The three-dimensional accuracy of DIT and CIT was compared in six clinical comparative studies. One of the RCTs was rated to have a high risk of bias and the other with a moderate quality of evidence. The six prospective studies were rated to have high-quality of evidence. The findings of this review indicate the prospective applicability of future intraoral scanning systems. The DIT was reported to be outstanding in terms of patient preferences and total fabrication time efficiency. Additional in vivo studies are needed to establish the therapeutic usefulness and time efficiency of integrating DIT in more comprehensive settings.

Photogrammetry technology in implant dentistry: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Photogrammetry technology may be useful in implant dentistry, but a systematic review is lacking and is indicated before routine use in clinical practice.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the role of the photogrammetry technology used in implant dentistry and determine its validity as an accurate tool with clinical applications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four major databases, PubMed MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, were selected to retrieve articles published from January 2011 to February 2021 based on custom criteria. The search was augmented by a manual search. After screening of the collected articles, data, including study design and setting, type of application, digitizer used, reference body, method of evaluation, and overall outcomes, were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included based on the selection criteria. Most of the articles confirmed that the use of photogrammetry was promising as an implant coordinate transfer system. However, few articles showed its use for 3-dimensional scanning, which might require more development.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial reports of using photogrammetry technology considered this method as a valid and reliable clinical tool in implant dentistry. More studies to develop the photogrammetry technology and to assess the results with evidence-based research are recommended to enhance its application in different clinical situations.

Optimal impression materials for implant-supported fixed complete dentures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) materials and polyether (PE) materials have been the recommended materials for making impressions for implant-supported fixed complete dentures (IFCDs), a consensus regarding the optimal impression materials has yet to be established.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of impression materials on the accuracy of conventional impressions for IFCDs and to provide guidance for selecting the optimal impression material.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched and supplemented via hand searches. Studies comparing the accuracy of conventional impressions for IFCDs by using PVS and PE materials with either direct (open-tray) or indirect (closed-tray) techniques were included. Linear distance deviations and angular deviations between adjacent implants were evaluated. The mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous data. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of implant angulation (α=.05).

RESULTS

Among the 597 publications identified, 27 in vitro studies were included for qualitative analysis, and 12 were included for quantitative analysis. The general analysis revealed no significant differences in linear distance and angular deviations between the 2 impression materials with the direct or indirect technique. The subgroup analysis found that a statistically significant difference in linear distance deviations was found when implants were placed at an angle greater than 15 degrees, favoring PE materials when using the direct technique (P=.010, MD: 32.54 µm; 95% CI: 6.83 to 58.24) and indirect technique (P=.020, MD: 138.15 µm, 95% CI: 19.17 to 257.13). However, only 2 relevant studies assessed the indirect technique.

CONCLUSIONS

When providing IFCDs, conventional impressions obtained by using PVS and PE materials were found to have similar accuracy in most scenarios. PE materials yielded better outcomes when implants were placed at an angle greater than 15 degrees.

Enhancing intraoral scanner accuracy using scan aid for multiple implants in the edentulous arch: An in vivo study

OBJECTIVES

Intraoral scans of multiple implants in the edentulous arch are challenged by the absence of a distinct surface morphology between scan bodies. A scan aid was applied in such situation and evaluated for intraoral scanning accuracy in vivo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

87 implants in 22 patients were scanned with scan aid (SA) and without scan aid (NO) using two different intraoral scanners (CS3600 [CS] and TRIOS3 [TR]). Master casts were digitized by a laboratory scanner. Virtual models were superimposed using an inspection software and Linear deviation and precision were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed models (α = .05).

RESULTS

Total mean linear deviation within the CS group was 189 μm without scan aid and 135 μm when using the scan aid. The TR group's total mean deviation was 165 μm with and without a scan aid. Significant improvement with scan aid was observed for the CS group (p = .001), and no difference was found in the TR group. 96% of scan bodies were successfully scanned in the TR-SA group compared to 86% for the TR-NO group, 83% for the CS-SA, and 70% for the CS-NO group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluated scan aid improved linear deviation compared to unsplinted scans for the CS group but not for the TR group. These differences could originate from different scanning technologies used, active triangulation (CS) and confocal microscopy (TR). The scan aid improved the ability to recognize scan bodies successfully with both systems, which could have a favorable clinical impact overall.

Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete arch digital scan, part 2: A comparison of scan strategies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Various strategies for intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be used to scan the oral cavity. However, research on the scan range that can be clinically is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the 3-dimensional (3D) distortion of complete arch scans as part of the scan strategy and analyze the clinically recommended scan range.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A computer-aided design (CAD) reference model was obtained with an industrial scanner. A CAD test model was obtained by using 6 IOSs (TRIOS2, TRIOS3, CS3500, CS3600, i500, and Primescan) to apply 2 scan strategies and 2 dental laboratory scanners (DOF and E1) (N=15). All the teeth were segmented in the reference model by using 3D inspection software (Geomagic control X). The 3D analysis was performed by aligning the test model to the reference model and evaluating the root mean square values of all segmented teeth. The Mann-Whitney U-test was performed for a statistical comparison of the 2 scan strategies (α=.05), the Kruskal-Wallis test (α=.05) was used to compare the scanners, and the Mann-Whitney U-test and Bonferroni correction method were used as post hoc tests (α=.0017).

RESULTS

The 8 scanners obtained significant differences in the root mean square values of all teeth (P<.001). The root mean square value of IOSs increased from the left maxillary second molar to the right maxillary second molar. The difference in the 2 scan strategies showed different patterns depending on the IOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Scan strategy 2 improved the accuracy of the IOSs. TRIOS2 and CS3500 are for single crowns; TRIOS3, CS3600, and i500 are for short-span prostheses; and Primescan is for long-span prostheses.

Impression heater: effectiveness of the thermal accelerator of dental impressions

BACKGROUND

The success in acquiring a precision impression in the dental field is a compromise between the processing time and the setting time of the impression material. A device called "Impression Heater" (EU application n° EP20186042.6) has recently been patented, which consists of a self-heating disposable adhesive patch with an exothermic chemical reaction to be placed on the dental impression tray. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a thermal impression accelerator in reducing the setting time of different elastomers.

METHODS

Three samples of 5 different elastomeric materials (width 6 mm x length 50 mm x depth 3-5-7 mm) the hardening of the material was evaluated at intervals of 15 seconds using an ASTM 2240 Shore-A durometer at 20 °C. The same procedure was replicated 3 times after positioning on a Impression Heater at temperatures of 35 °C, 50 °C and 65 °C, for each material.

RESULTS

An increase in the impression material temperature from 35 °C to 50 °C reduces the setting time of an amount between 38.1% and 45.8%. Increasing the temperature from 35 °C to 65 °C results in a reduction of the setting time between 52.4% and 66.9%. At higher temperatures, the greater thickness of the impression material requires longer hardening times.

CONCLUSIONS

The tests carried out confirm the validity of the patented idea which reduces the time of impression taking while keeping the working time sufficiently long for the operator to manoeuvre.

Use of scanning electron microscope to evaluate the marginal fit of protocol bars obtained through benchtop or intraoral digital scanners

Aim: To evaluate the marginal fit of protocol bars milled from digital models obtained by conventional molding followed by bench scanning or digital molding with an intraoral scanner. Methods: Four morse-cone implants and the mini-pillars were installed in a 3D printed mandible model (master model). Digital models of the master model were obtained by (n=10): (Group A - Conventional) conventional (analog) molding of the master model followed by bench scanning or (Group B - Digital) molding of the master model with an intraoral scanner. All-on-four protocol bars were designed and milled from the digital models for both groups and screwed into the master model. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images from the distal, central, and mesial regions of each implant were obtained and the implant-protocol bar marginal fit was measured in an image software (Image J). The mean misfit of each region was analyzed by two-factor ANOVA, Tukey test, and Student’s t-test (0,05 = 0.05). Results: The digital approach (B) showed higher misadaptation than the conventional approach (A, p < 0.05), regardless of the region evaluated. In group A, the central region showed higher maladjustment than the mesial region (p<0.05), however, there were no differences among regions of group B (p>0.05). Conclusion: The conventional method of acquiring digital models using the bench scanner produced bars for the All-On-Four protocol with better marginal fit than the digital models obtained with an intraoral scanner.

Digital assessment of the accuracy of implant impression techniques in free end saddle partially edentulous patients. A controlled clinical trial

Objectives

This in vivo study aims to assess the accuracy of the digital intraoral implant impression technique, the conventional closed-tray impression technique, and open-tray impression techniques in a standardized method of data segmentation along with the best-fit algorithm to overcome the inconsistency of results of previous studies regarding implant impression techniques.

Materials and methods

Sixteen implants were placed in eight patients. Each patient has undergone four impression techniques: direct intraoral scanning of the stock abutment, intraoral scanning using a scan body, conventional closed tray impression technique, and the conventional open tray impression technique. The conventional impressions were poured into stone casts with analogues and stock abutments and scanned using a desktop scanner. In intraoral scanning of the scan body, computer-aided design software was used for the replacement of the scan body with a custom-made abutment that is identical to the stock abutment, allowing comparison with the other impression techniques. The deviation in implant position between the groups was measured using special 3D inspection and metrology software. Statistical comparisons were carried out between the studied groups using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.

Results

The total deviation between groups was compared to the reference group represented by the intraoral scanning of the abutment. The total deviation was statistically significantly different (P = 0.000) among the different studied groups. The mean deviation was recorded as 21.45 ± 3.3 μm, 40.04 ± 4.1 μm, and 47.79 ± 4.6 μm for the intraoral scanning of the scan body, the conventional closed, and open tray, respectively.

Conclusion

For implant impressions in partially edentulous patients, intraoral oral scanning using a scan body significantly improves scanning and overall accuracy. Regarding conventional impressions, the closed-tray impression techniques showed more accuracy than conventional open-tray impressions.

Clinical relevance

Intraoral digital implant impression using scan body offers more accuracy than conventional implant impression techniques for recording posterior implant position in free-end saddle partially edentulous patients.

Fully Digital versus Conventional Workflows for Fabricating Posterior Three-Unit Implant-Supported Reconstructions: A Prospective Crossover Clinical Trial

This study assessed the clinical variables influencing the success of three-unit implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (ISFDPs) fabricated using either fully digital or conventional workflows. The clinical trial evaluated 10 patients requiring three-unit ISFDPs in the posterior mandible. Maxillomandibular relation records, and digital and conventional impressions were obtained from each patient using an intraoral scanner (IoS) and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS), and the frameworks were fabricated using zirconia and cobalt-chromium, respectively. A 2 µm accuracy scanner scanned the conventional master casts and standard reference models. The stereolithography (STL) files of the digital and conventional impressions were superimposed on the standard model file, and the accuracy was calculated with the best-fit algorithm. The framework adaptation and passivity were assessed using the one-screw and screw resistance tests. The time required for occlusal adjustment of both types of reconstructions, including the duration of the whole treatment, was recorded. The aesthetic appearance of ISFDPs was rated by each patient and clinician using a self-administered visual analogue scale questionnaire and the FDI World Dental Federation aesthetic parameters, respectively. The sample size was based on the power calculation, and alpha was set at 0.05 for the statistical analyses. The impression accuracy, framework adaptation and passivity, and reconstructions aesthetics did not significantly differ between the digital and conventional approaches. The total fabrication time was significantly shorter using the digital workflow. Within the limitations of this clinical study, the fully digital workflow can be used for the fabrication of ISFDPs with a clinical outcome comparable to that of the conventional workflow.

Polyetheretherketone CAD-CAM framework for all-on-4 mandibular full arch prosthesis: Three years' retrospective study of periimplant soft tissue changes and ridge base relationship

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to evaluate the clinical peri-implant soft tissue changes during first year after occlusal loading and the ridge base relation after three years for mandibular CAD-CAM manufactured screw-retained implant-supported hybrid prosthesis of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) framework utilized with All-on-Four treatment concept.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixteen completely edentulous patients were rehabilitated by 4 implants following the All-On-Four protocol. After 3 months, the definitive prosthesis was constructed to be a screw retained CAD-CAM milled framework from the modified PEEK (BioHPP), bonded to polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) teeth and a pink shaded indirect light-polymerized nanofilled composite resin imitating the soft tissues. Peri-implant soft tissue changes regarding plaque, bleeding, gingival scores, and probing depth were evaluated at prosthesis insertion (T0), six months (T1) and 12 months (T2) after insertion. Also, monitoring of the ridge base relation was performed using cone beam computed tomography after one year (T0), two years (T1), and three years (T2) after mandibular fixed detachable All-on-Four framework insertion. Using Shapiro Wilk tests using SPSS^® software version 22 (SPSS Inc.), all clinical data were non- parametric while the ridge base relation data was parametric.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences regarding plaque, gingival, and bleeding scores for all implants with advancement of time. However, there was a statistically insignificant difference regarding probing depth in the posterior implants (p = .581). Regarding ridge base relation, there was a significant difference between observation times only in the anterior ridge area in between the two anterior implants (p = .011).

CONCLUSION

Within limitations of the study, the full arch PEEK framework of fixed-detachable, hybrid prosthesis used with All-on-Four concept for rehabilitation of mandibular edentulous arches is an acceptable treatment approach. Based on the stable ridge base relation posteriorly found in this study, less stress is distributed to the underlining bone due to the shock absorbing ability of PEEK. Special considerations for frequent soft tissue follow up and regular maintenance of oral hygiene measures are recommended. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

In vitro scanning accuracy using different aids for multiple implants in the edentulous arch

OBJECTIVES

Optical impressions of implants in the edentulous arch are challenged by the absence of distinct surface morphology between multiple implant scan bodies. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate a newly developed scan aid in various designs and colors to improve the accuracy of multi-implant scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A universal scan aid in three different designs (circular, square, irregular) and three different materials (colors: beige, gray, white) was applied to the implant scan bodies of a master model of 6 implants in an edentulous maxilla. Ten scans using an intra-oral scanner of each scan aid were acquired. Reference scanning was performed using a desktop optical scanner. Alignment of scans was performed at the first scan body in a three-dimensional modeling and inspection software and deviations for trueness and precision were calculated using the signed nearest neighbor method and then statistically analyzed (α=.05).

RESULTS

Overall, the beige irregular scan aid had the highest trueness and showed significant differences compared to unsplinted scans. The precision showed more heterogenous results and decreased when using the scan aid. Ease of use was observed with the irregular gray scan aid due to its increased elongation at break.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluated scan aid led to improved trueness when compared to unsplinted scans. Even though the irregular design in beige color showed highest trueness, the poor fracture strength of the tested material requires further improvement.

In Vitro Comparison of Three Intraoral Scanners for Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses

With continuing technological developments, there have been advances in the field of fixed prosthetics, particularly in impression-taking techniques. These technological advances mean that a wide variety of diagnostic and/or rehabilitation possibilities can be explored without the need for physical models. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three intraoral scanners used in oral implant rehabilitation using an extraoral scanner as a reference and varying the scanning area. Three models representing different clinical scenarios were scanned 15 times by each intraoral scanner and three times by the extraoral scanner. The readings were analyzed and overlaid using engineering software (Geomagic^® Control X software (Artec Europe, Luxembourg)). Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found between the three intraoral scanners, iTero^® (Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), Medit^® (Medit^®: Seoul, Korea), and Planmeca^® (Planmeca^®: Helsinki, Finland). In all clinical scenarios, the iTero^® scanner had the best trueness (24.4 μm), followed by the Medit^® (26.4 μm) and Planmeca^® (42.1 μm). The Medit^® showed the best precision (18.00 μm) followed by the iTero^® (19.20 μm) and Planmeca^® (34.30 μm). We concluded that the iTero^® scanner had the highest reproducibility and accuracy in the clinical setting.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital implant impressions in daily clinical practice is increasing. However, no structured literature review on the accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies has been described to date. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to answer the PICO question: Which accuracy is described for digital implant impressions in clinical studies?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic database search was conducted in December 2021 using MeSH terms and free-text search. English-language studies addressing the accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies involving at least 10 patients were included. All clinical indications were considered.

RESULTS

Eight publications between 2014 and 2021 matched the review criteria. However, the study designs showed considerable differences. The number of implants within the studies ranged from 1 to 6, and the number of patients ranged from 10 to 39. The oldest study (2014) revealed the highest deviation for linear distances at 1000±650 µm, whereas the other studies reported data in the range of 360±46 µm to 40±20 µm. In one study, no numerical data were reported and all studies compared digital and conventional implant impressions.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of clinical studies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions is low. Thus, the impact of different factors, such as the scanpath or scanbody, could not be identified. However, the accuracy of recent IOSs for digital implant impressions in patients was shown to be clinically acceptable. Nevertheless, the transfer error still needs to be considered when fabrication implant-supported restorations.

Accuracy of Additively Manufactured Dental Casts Compared with That of Virtual Scan Data Obtained with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study

The study aimed to evaluate the time-related accuracy of additively manufactured dental casts and to compare it with scan data obtained with an intraoral scanner in vitro. Twenty-eight markers were attached to a set of dentiforms as reference model, and the distances between the markers were measured using a digital caliper. An intraoral scanner was used to obtain the virtual scan data of the reference model with a total of 30 scans per arch. The distances between markers were measured using a three-dimensional inspection software for all scans (group IOS). Scan data were additively manufactured using a 3D printer, and the distances between markers were measured as in the reference model immediately after post-polymerization (group PPIA), 1 day (group PP1D), 7 days (group PP7D), and 30 days after post-polymerization (group PP30D). The linear deviation in group IOS was 199.74 ± 11.14 μm, PPIA was 242.88 ± 49 μm, PP1D was 259.9 ± 42.59 μm, PP7D was 289.82 ± 39.74 μm, and PP30D was 315.8 ± 33.28 μm, in comparison with the reference model, with significant differences among all groups (all p < 0.05). When additively manufacturing casts from scan data to verify the quality of dental prostheses designed virtually, the prostheses should be adapted to casts manufactured within one week.

Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression" and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.

Three-dimensional Change of Elastomeric Impression Materials During the First 24 Hours: A Pilot Study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the three-dimensional (3D) changes of three elastomeric impression materials using a novel measurement method for the first 24 hours after preparation.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Three impression materials consisting of a low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) (Aquasil LV, Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) and two vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) materials consisting of a light body (EXA'lence LB, GC America, Alsip, IL, USA) and monophase (EXA'lence Monophase, GC America) materials were used in this study. All materials were prepared following manufacturer's recommendations with approximately 1-2 millimeters of material placed on the measurement pedestal of a calibrated noncontact, video imaging based, volumetric change measuring device (AcuVol ver 2.5.9, Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA). Data collection was initiated immediately, with measurements made every 30 seconds for 24 hours. Each material was evaluated 10 times (n=10). Evaluated parameters included were 24-hour mean shrinkage, mean shrinkage at time of recommended first pour, mean shrinkage between recommended first pour and 24 hours, mean maximum shrinkage, and the time of maximum shrinkage. Mean data, both within and between each group, was evaluated using Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn's tests at a 95% level of confidence (α=0.05).

RESULTS

All three materials were found to have significant differences (p<0.001) in volumetric shrinkage over 24 hours. Aquasil LV and EXA'lence LB polymerization shrinkage rates were statistically similar all through the 24-hour evaluation (p=0.92). All three materials demonstrated similar (p=0.19) shrinkage between 10 and 15 minutes after preparation, while between 5 and 16 hours both EXA'lence Monophase and low-viscosity materials demonstrated similar polymerization shrinkage values (p=0.22). EXA'lence Monophase demonstrated significantly greater 24-hour mean shrinkage (p<0.008) as well as shrinkage between recommended first pour time and 24 hours (p=0.003) than Aquasil LV and EXA'lence LB. EXA'lence Monophase demonstrated significantly greater (p=0.002) shrinkage at the recommended time of first pour as compared to Aquasil LV and EXA'lence LB that displayed similar shrinkage (p=0.89). Furthermore, all materials demonstrated increasing polymerization shrinkage values that reached a maximum between 16 for Aquasil LV and 20 hours for EXA'lence LB, after which some relaxation behavior was observed. However, EXA'lence Monophase did not display any relaxation behavior over the 24-hour evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the conditions of this study, volumetric polymerization shrinkage was observed for one polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and two vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) materials for up to 24 hours. All impression materials exhibited fast early volumetric shrinkage that continued past the manufacturer's recommended removal time. Dimensional change behavior was not uniform within or between groups; resultant volume change between the manufacturer recommended pouring time and 24 hours might represent up to from 20% to 30% of the total material shrinkage. It may be prudent to pour elastomeric impressions at the earliest time possible following the manufacturer's recommendations.

In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions for fixed dental prosthesis under in vitro and in vivo conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight patients (five women and three men) with at least one edentulous arch and with 4-6 osseointegrated implants participated in this study. For each edentulous arch (n = 10), experimental screw-retained titanium bar with attached four scan bodies was fabricated. The bar containing four scan bodies was screw-retained intraorally on implants and scanned with Trios 3 intraoral scanner eight times (IOS group, in vivo). Then, the bar was attached to the master cast and scanned eight times again with the same intraoral scanner (MIOS group, in vitro). Finally, the bar with scan bodies was scanned 8 times with a laboratory scanner (reference). Precision and trueness were calculated for 3 distances and 3 angles between the scan bodies (1-2, 1-3, and 1-4) in IOS and MIOS groups.

RESULTS

Precision and trueness for the largest distance (1-4) were found to be 44 ± 18 µm and 32 ± 19 µm for the IOS group and 31 ± 16 µm and 30 ± 14 µm for MIOS group, respectively. Precision and trueness for the angle between the most distant scan bodies (1-4) were 0.22 ± 0.14° and 0.18 ± 0.10° for the IOS group and 0.16 ± 0.11° and 0.07 ± 0.05° for MIOS group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoral conditions moderately affected the precision and trueness of Trios 3 (3Shape) intraoral scanner. Results of in vitro accuracy studies cannot be directly transferred to the clinical field.

Accuracy of digital impressions versus conventional impressions for 2 implants: an in vitro study evaluating the effect of implant angulation

BACKGROUND

Accurate implant impression is an essential requirement for the fabrication of implant prosthesis. This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of digital impressions by intraoral scanner (IOS) systems in comparison to conventional impressions for recording the position of 2 parallel implants and 2 divergent implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In vitro 3-unit prosthesis master models with 2 tissue level implants were fabricated; one model had parallel implants, and the other model had one 15° tilted implant. The conventional open-tray impressions were obtained with non-splinted (NSP) and splinted (SP) impression copings. Trios 4 (TS), Medit i500 (MT), and True Definition (TD) were used to make digital impressions with scan bodies. A total of 10 impressions were obtained with every technique. The virtual test images of the conventional and digital impressions were converted to 2 virtual implant images. For each group, trueness, precision, inter-implant distance deviation, and angle deviation were measured.

RESULTS

There was a general tendency for digital impressions to provide a more accurate outcome for trueness, precision, and angle deviation. The 2 conventional impressions showed similar accuracy, except for the angle deviation, where the NSP was significantly inferior than SP (p < 0.01) for the divergent implants model. The TD was generally the least accurate among all the IOS systems, especially for the inter-implant distance deviation (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of the laboratory set-up of the present study and the limited clinical resemblance, the digital impressions appeared to have sufficient accuracy for 2 implants and were least affected by the presence of angle between implants. The most inferior outcome was observed for the NSP technique.

Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review

Background

With the development of intraoral scanners, their trueness and precision have been evaluated in various studies. Through these studies, the amount of accuracy that can be expected from intraoral scanners has gradually been disclosed, at the same time, it was difficult to integrate the results of individual studies due to differences in evaluation methods between studies. The purpose of this article was to review the currently available evidence, summarise what is currently known about IOS, analyse the evaluation methods of each study, and list points to note when interpreting the results.

Main text

Most of the studies were conducted in vitro. The accuracy is evaluated in situations such as single missing teeth, partially edentulous ridges with multiple missing teeth, and fully edentulous jaws. To evaluate the accuracy, direct measurement of distance or angle by coordinate measuring machines and calculation of surface deviation by superimposing surface data were predominantly performed. The influence of parameters such as the number of implants, distance between implants, angle between implants, and experience of the operator was evaluated. Many studies have shown that trueness tends to decrease as the distance between the implants and the scan range increases. It was agreed that the implant angle did not affect either trueness or precision. Regarding other factors, the results varied among studies. Therefore, the effects of these parameters are not clear.

Conclusions

Heterogeneity in the research methodology was prevalent among the studies considered in this review. Therefore, we cannot make a decisive statement regarding the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by IOSs. So far, the comparison of the numerical values of error between studies has yet to elucidate any clear answers, despite small methodological differences.

Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral scanning has benefits over conventional impression making, but whether scanning is sufficiently accurate for multiple implants is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of digital scans acquired by using intraoral scanners from a small range to a complete arch with the conventional impression technique and to determine the influence of 2 different evaluation methods (best-fit algorithm versus absolute linear deviation) on the outcomes of accuracy assessment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A mandibular model with 8 implants (A-H) around an edentulous arch was used as the master model. Open-format standard tessellation language (STL) data sets (1 reference file from a highly accurate dental laboratory scanner, 10 files from an intraoral scanner, and 10 files from digitized conventional impressions at room temperature) were imported to a metrology software program, and 5 groups of scanning ranges (AB, FGH, CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH) were identified simulating different clinical situations. Two evaluation methods-root mean square values calculated from the best-fit algorithm and average value of linear discrepancies from absolute linear deviation-were used to describe the trueness values. The impacts of different scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods were tested by using a 3-way ANOVA. The effect of the scanning range on accuracy was further identified with 1-way ANOVA. The paired-sample t test was used to determine the differences of trueness values between the 2 methods in different groups.

RESULTS

The trueness values of the implant impressions were significantly affected by different scanning or impression methods (P<.001), evaluation methods (P<.001), and scanning ranges (P<.001) as independent variables. With use of the best-fit algorithm, deviations from the digital scans were significantly greater than those from the conventional impressions in cross-arch situations (groups CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH). With use of the absolute linear deviation method, statistically significant lower accuracy was found when larger areas were encountered (groups BCDEFG and ABCDEFGH). Use of the absolute linear deviation method resulted in a higher mean score of inaccuracy than that from the best-fit algorithm method in most situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods affected the dimensional accuracy (trueness) of scans or impressions with multiple implants. Digital scans had worse trueness values compared with those made with the conventional splinting open-tray technique when cross-arch implant impressions were acquired.

A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to systematically compare the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions in patients using a new reference key-based method.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-nine cases were included in the study (upper jaw 22 edentulous, 8 partially edentulous, average distance between implants 30.15 ± 11.18 mm; lower jaw 6 cases edentulous, 3 cases partially edentulous, average distance between implants 33.19 ± 14.85 mm). Individual reference keys were manufactured and reversibly fixed on implants. A conventional (CVI) and a digital (DI) implant impression was made. The implant positions (center points) of conventional and digital models were measured (coordinate-measuring machine/three-dimensional analysis software) and superimposed with the positions of the reference keys to compare the deviations of the conventional and digital models. For statistical analysis, ANOVA with MIXED procedure was applied (p < .05).

RESULTS

Mean deviation ranged from 0.040±0.029 mm (DI/upper jaw) to 0.079 ± 0.050 mm (DI/lower jaw). There were significant differences between the CVI and DI impressions in the lower jaw (p < .05). No significant differences in transfer accuracy were found between partially and completely edentulous patients for the impression methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that full-arch digital implant impressions of the upper jaw in partially or completely edentulous patients showed comparable results to conventional implant impressions. However, with regard to the implant position transfer accuracy, there are still limitations for digital impression in the lower jaw.

Trueness of ten intraoral scanners in determining the positions of simulated implant scan bodies

Few investigations have evaluated the 3-dimensional (3D) accuracy of digital implant scans. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of 10 intraoral scanners (IOSs) (CEREC Omnicam, CEREC Primescan, CS 3600, DWIO, i500, iTero Element, PlanScan, Trios 2, Trios 3, and True Definition) in obtaining the accurate positions of 6 cylinders simulating implant scan bodies. Digital scans of each IOS were compared with the reference dataset obtained by means of a coordinate measuring machine. Deviation from the actual positions of the 6 cylinders along the XYZ axes and the overall 3D deviation of the digital scan were calculated. The type of IOSs and position of simulated cylindrical scan bodies affected the magnitude and direction of deviations on trueness. The lowest amount of deviation was found at the cylinder next to the reference origin, while the highest deviation was evident at the contralateral side for all IOSs (p < 0.001). Among the tested IOSs, the CEREC Primescan and Trios 3 had the highest trueness followed by i500, Trios 2, and iTero Element, albeit not statistically significant (p > 0.05), and the DWIO and PlasScan had the lowest trueness in partially edentulous mandible digital implant scans (p < 0.001).

Accuracy of 3D Printed Implant Casts Versus Stone Casts: A Comparative Study in the Anterior Maxilla

PURPOSE

To conduct an in vitro comparison of the amount of three-dimensional (3D) deviation of 3D printed casts generated from digital implant impressions with an intraoral scanner (IOS) to stone casts made of conventional impressions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary master cast with partially edentulous anterior area was fabricated with two internal connection implants (Regular CrossFit, Straumann). Stone casts (n = 10) that served as a control were fabricated with the splinted open-tray impression technique. Twenty digital impressions were made using a white light IOS (TRIOS, 3shape) and the Standard Tesselation Language (STL) files obtained were saved. Based on the STL files, a digital light processing (DLP) and a stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printer (Varseo S and Form 2) were used to print casts (n = 10 from each 3D printer). The master cast and all casts generated from each group were digitized using the same IOS. The STL files obtained were superimposed on the master cast STL file (reference) to evaluate the amount of 3D deviation with inspection software using the root mean square value (RMS). The independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction (for post hoc comparisons) were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The Varseo S group had the lowest median RMS value [77.5 µm (IQR = 91.4-135.4)], followed closely by the Conventional group [77.7 µm (IQR = 61.5-93.4)]. The Form 2 had the highest mean value [98.8 µm (IQR = 57.6-87.9)]. The independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.018). Post hoc testing revealed a significant difference between Varseo S and Form 2 (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The casts generated from the Varseo S 3D printer had better 3D accuracy than did those from the Form 2 3D printer. Both the Varseo S group and the conventional stone casts groups had similar 3D accuracy.

The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced through a direct digital workflow were reported.

METHODS

A MEDLINE (Pubmed) search of the relevant English-language literature spanning from January 1st 2015 until March 31st 2020 was conducted. In vitro studies comparing digital implant impression accuracy by different IOS devices or in vitro studies examining differences in accuracy between digital and conventional impression procedures were included. Also, RCTs, clinical trials and case series on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, manufactured completely digitally were included. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting on restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow, case reports and non-English language articles were excluded. The aim was to investigate the accuracy of IOS for single and multiple fixed implant restorations compared to the conventional impression methods and report on the variables that influence it. Finally, this study aimed to report on the survival and success of fixed implant-retained restorations fabricated using the direct digital workflow.

RESULTS

For the single and short-span implant sites, IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression was identified. Moreover, complete-arch IOS impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. Factors related to scanbody design as well as scanner generation, scanning range and interimplant distance were found to influence complete-arch scanning accuracy. Single implant-retained monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates and minor complications for short to medium follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Nevertheless, intraoral scanning exhibited high accuracy both for single and multiple implant restorations. Available literature on single-implant monolithic restorations manufactured through a complete digital workflow shows promising results for a follow-up of 3-5 years.

The effect of the improperly scanned scan body images on the accuracy of virtual implant positioning in computer-aided design software

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine the importance of the defect-free scanning of a scan body by assessing the accuracy of virtual implant positioning in computer-aided design (CAD) software when the scan body image is improperly scanned.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scan body was digitized in a dentiform model using an intraoral scanner, and scanned images with differing levels of image deficiency were generated: 5%, 10%, and 15% deficiency in the flat or rounded area. Using a best-fit image matching algorithm on each of the deficient scan body images, corresponding virtual implants were created. The accuracy of the implant position was evaluated by comparing the linear and angular discrepancies between the actual and virtual positions of the implant. Kruskal-Wallis tests and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction were used to determine the statistical differences among the seven scanned image deficiency groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

In general, the linear and angular discrepancies of the implant position in the software increased as the deficiency of the scan body images increased. A 15% scan body image deficiency generated larger discrepancies than deficiency of 5% and 10%. The difference of scan defect position, flat or rounded area, did not affect the accuracy of virtual implant orientation at 5% and 10% deficiency level, but did affect the accuracy at 15% deficiency level.

CONCLUSION

Deficiencies in the scanned images of a scan body can decrease the accuracy of the implant positioning in CAD software when the defect is large, thus leading to the incorrect fabrication of implant prostheses.

Digitization of One-Piece Oral Implants: A Feasibility Study

For digital impression-making of two-piece oral implants, scan bodies are used to transfer the exact intraoral implant position to the dental laboratory. In this in vitro investigation, the accuracy of digitizing a one-piece ceramic oral implant without a scan body (OC) was compared to that of a standard two-piece titanium implant with a scan body (TT) and a preparation of a natural single tooth (ST). Furthermore, incomplete scans of OC simulating clinical compromising situations (OC_1–4) were redesigned using a virtual reconstruction tool (RT) and superimposed to OC. OC and TT oral implants and one ST were inserted into a mandible typodont model and digitized (N = 13) using two different intraoral scanners. The resulting virtual datasets were superimposed onto a three-dimensional (3D) laser scanner-based reference. Test and reference groups were aligned using an inspection software according to a best-fit algorithm, and circumferential as well as marginal discrepancies were measured. For the statistical evaluation, multivariate analyses of variance with post-hoc Tukey tests and students t-tests to compare both scanners were performed. A total of 182 datasets were analyzed. For circumferential deviations, no significant differences were found between ST, TT, and OC (p > 0.964), but increased deviations for OC_1–4 (p < 0.001) were observed. The measurements of the marginal deviations revealed that ST had the smallest deviations, and that there were no significant differences between TT, OC, and OC_1–4 (p > 0.979). Except for marginal deviation of OC (p < 0.001), the outcome was not affected by the scanner. Within the limitations of this study, digitization of OC is as accurate as that of TT, but less than that of ST. In the case of known geometries, post-processing of compromised scans with a virtual reconstruction results in accurate data.

In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants

Purpose

To determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials.

Materials and Methods

Impressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans.

Results

Compared to elastomeric impressions, optical impressions showed a significantly improved mean precision. TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed a significantly improved mean trueness compared to that of closed tray, CEREC Omnicam and TrueDefinition. All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques.

Conclusions

Optical impressions, taken under these in vitro conditions, showed improved accuracy compared with that of elastomeric impressions.

A new 3D-method to assess the inter implant dimensions in patients - A pilot study

Background

Complex implant treatments have steadily increased within implant prosthodontics. Based on the lower implant mobility, implant impressions need high accuracy in the model transfer to receive a high passive fit within the final prosthodontic restoration. To analyze the accurate 3-dimensional (3D) inter-implant-positions, a reference point is indispensable. However, there is no reference in the patients mouth, so the aim of the present study was to develop a new method based on a custom-made-measuring-aid (CMA) to assess the inter implant dimensions (InID) in patients.

Material and Methods

Initially an implant master model (IMM/patient equivalent) was digitized by computed tomography. A CMA was fixed on the impression posts and the inter implant dimensions (InID) were recorded with a coordinate measurement machine (CMM). For comparison to conventional and digital impression techniques, 10 impressions per technique were taken. InIDs for the IMM, the CMA and the two impression techniques were compared. To give a proof of principle, the new 3D-method was applied to three patients as pilot cases. Results for trueness and precision were analyzed by pairwise comparisons (p< .05). All data were subjected to univariate ANOVA.

Results

Mean deviation for InID ranged from 10.3±18μm(CMA) to 41.7±36μm(conventional). There were partially significant differences for InID between the CMA and the different impression techniques. There were no significant differences for InID within the CMA. The InID in the in-vivo evaluation ranged from 42.3μm to 376.7μm(digital) and from 58.3μm to 274.0μm(conventional). There were partially significant differences between the techniques.

Conclusions

Within the limits of this study, with the developed method using a CMA it is possible to assess the true 3D-InID with a decisive higher accuracy than possible with a conventional or digital implant impression. Overall, the CMA in this study generated results that were deemed clinically useful for the investigated inter implant positions.

Key words:Dental Implants, Dimensional Measurement Accuracy, Dental Impression Technique, Intraoral Scanner.

Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow

BACKGROUND

Long-term success of implant-supported restorations can be affected by the accuracy of the prosthodontic workflow which may differ between conventional and digital techniques.

PURPOSE

The purpose was to compare the fit of two-implant-supported restorations, fabricated using conventional and digital workflows and to assess the influence of distance and angulation between the implants on the passive fit of the prosthesis. The SR test was selected to evaluate the fit of two-implant-supported zirconia restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight zirconia two-implant-supported restorations were fabricated according to conventional (group C, n = 24) and digital (group D, n = 24) workflows. The SR parameter was calculated as a difference of rotation angles of each screw in passive and nonpassive situations. SR values between groups C and D were compared by performing measurements intraorally, on master and control casts.

RESULTS

SR intraorally in group C (16.25 ± 15.52°) was higher than it was in group D (13.85 ± 10.78°), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .557). While measuring SR on the master cast, group C SR (6.04 ± 7.43°) had lower values than group D (13.12 ± 13.86°) (P = .0039). No statistically significant correlations were found between SR measurements and inter-implant distance or angulation. Restorations with inter-implant angle higher than 10° differed significantly from those with less than 10° angulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital restorations had a better fit on the control cast, which was used as a reference in this study. Angulation of more than 10° between the implants could negatively affect the passive fit of the digitally fabricated restorations intraorally.

Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital impression of simulated implant scan bodies in a partially edentulous model. A 3D printed partially edentulous mandible model made of Co-Cr with a total of 6 bilaterally positioned cylinders in the canine, second premolar, and second molar area served as the study model. Digital scans of the model were made with a reference scanner (steroSCAN neo) and 5 IOSs (CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, i500, iTero Element, and TRIOS 3) (n = 10). For each IOS’s dataset, the XYZ coordinates of the cylinders were obtained from the reference point and the deviations from the reference scanner were calculated using a 3D reverse engineering program (Rapidform). The trueness values were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney post hoc test. Direction and amount of deviation differed among cylinder position and among IOSs. Regardless of the IOS type, the cylinders positioned on the left second molar, nearest to the scanning start point, showed the smallest deviation. The deviation generally increased further away from scanning start point towards the right second molar. TRIOS 3 and i500 outperformed the other IOSs for partially edentulous digital impression. The accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, and iTero Element were similar on the left side, but they showed more deviations on the right side of the arch when compared to the other IOSs. The accuracy of IOS is still an area that needs to be improved.

Accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions for fixed partial dentures: A comparative clinical study

PURPOSE

The newest technologies for digital implant impression (DII) taking are developing rapidly and showing acceptable clinical results. However, scientific literature is lacking data from clinical studies about the accuracy of DII. The aim of this study was to compare digital and conventional dental implant impressions (CII) in a clinical environment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four fixed zirconia restorations supported by 2 implants were fabricated using conventional open-tray impression technique with splinted transfers (CII group) and scan with Trios 3 IOS (3Shape) (DII group). After multiple verification procedures, master models were scanned using laboratory scanner D800 (3Shape). 3D models from conventional and digital workflow were imported to reverse engineering software and superimposed with high resolution 3D CAD models of scan bodies. Distance between center points, angulation, rotation, vertical shift, and surface mismatch of the scan bodies were measured and compared between conventional and digital impressions.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found for: a) inter-implant distance, b) rotation, c) vertical shift, and d) surface mismatch differences, comparing DII and CII groups for mesial and dist al implant scan bodies (P≤.05).

CONCLUSION

Recorded linear differences between digital and conventional impressions were of limited clinical significance with two implant-supported restorations.

Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the precision of digital implant impressions in comparison with conventional impressions and assess the impact of the scanning range on precision.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous maxilla model with six implants was scanned with four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and a dental laboratory scanner five times each, and stereolithography (STL) data were generated. A conventional silicone impression was made, and a model was fabricated, which was scanned using the laboratory scanner. This procedure was also repeated five times. Nine different ranges of interest (ROIs) were defined, and the average discrepancies of the measurement points between each pair of STL images out of five for each ROI were calculated. The effects of "impression method" and "ROI" on precision, as evaluated by the averaged discrepancy, were tested by two-way analysis of variance (p < .05).

RESULTS

The effects of "impression methods" and "ROI" and their interactions were statistically significant. The discrepancies in the scanned datasets of the dental laboratory scanner were significantly lower than those in the other impression methods. The discrepancies of the IOSs were comparable with those of the laboratory scanner when the ROI was limited, however; the discrepancies deteriorated when the ROI expanded across the arch, while those of the laboratory scanner remained stable irrespective of the ROI.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this in vitro study, digital implant impressions by IOSs may show clinically acceptable precision when the scan range is limited, such as in 3-unit superstructure supported by two implants.

A clinical comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques regarding finish line locations and impression time

OBJECTIVE

This study compared digital and conventional impression techniques regarding impression time, frequency of adjustments, and adaptation of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) copings with supragingival and subgingival finish lines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty premolars prepared for single-unit metal-ceramic restorations with supragingival and subgingival finish lines (n = 15). Conventional impression and digital scan of prepared teeth were made. Using computer aided design/computer aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) system the copings were produced by a milling machine from Co-Cr blocks and internal and marginal discrepancies were measured using silicone replica technique. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA and Mann-Whitney test (alpha = .05).

RESULTS

The impression technique had a significant effect on the magnitude of gap (P < .001). The internal and marginal gaps in the digital technique (49.43 μ and 60.07 μ, respectively) were significantly lower than the values in the conventional method (91.88 μ and 96.96 μ, respectively-P < .001). Finish line positions had no significant effect on the fit and marginal gap of copings (P = .54 and .243, respectively). The mean impression time (19':27″ in conventional technique and 10':31″ in digital technique) was significantly shorter (P < .001) and the mean frequency of adjustments (2.2 times for conventional and 1.3 times for digital technique) was significantly lower in the digital technique (P < .001). The gingival biotype (thick or thin) had no significant effect on marginal and internal fit (P = .052 and .319, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The digital technique was superior in terms of fit, impression time, and frequency of adjustments. Finish line positions had no significant effect on the fit of copings.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Using intraoral scanner promotes the fits of restorations in supragingival and subgingival finish lines.

Impact of design and length on the accuracy of closed tray transfer copings

Background

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of two closed-tray transfer copings for implant impressions (a new design vs. an old design) in two different lengths (short and long).

Material and Methods

Four groups of transfer copings (NS - new short, NL - new long, OS - old short and OL - old long) were tested. An epoxy resin model was prepared of missing teeth 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6. Two Alpha-Bio analogues were placed in position of teeth 1.4 and 1.6, at a 10o angulation. Two calibrated operators took 10 closed-tray impressions for each group with polyether in a Rim-Lock impression tray.

Results

After measuring and comparing impressions, a significant difference was found between the two new transfer copings and the old short transfer coping.

Conclusions

The new transfer coping design significantly improved impression accuracy. An adequate transfer coping design for the closed-tray impression technique can help to achieve clinically acceptable impressions for two-unit implant supported bridges.

Key words:Closed tray, impression coping, transfer coping, implant impression.

Comparison of different impression techniques for edentulous jaws using three-dimensional analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare two novel impression methods and a conventional impression method for edentulous jaws using 3-dimensional (3D) analysis software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Five edentulous patients (four men and one woman; mean age: 62.7 years) were included. Three impression techniques were used: conventional impression method (CI; control), simple modified closed-mouth impression method with a novel tray (SI), and digital impression method using an intraoral scanner (DI). Subsequently, a gypsum model was made, scanned, and superimposed using 3D analysis software. Mean area displacement was measured using CI method to evaluate differences in the impression surfaces as compared to those values obtained using SI and DI methods. The values were confirmed at two to five areas to determine the differences. CI and SI were compared at all areas, while CI and DI were compared at the supporting areas. Kruskal-Wallis test was performed for all data. Statistical significance was considered at P value <.05.

RESULTS

In the comparison of the CI and SI methods, the greatest difference was observed in the mandibular vestibule without statistical significance (P>.05); the difference was < 0.14 mm in the maxilla. The difference in the edentulous supporting areas between the CI and DI methods was not significant (P>.05).

CONCLUSION

The CI, SI, and DI methods were effective in making impressions of the supporting areas in edentulous patients. The SI method showed clinically applicability.

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

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.

Soft tissue replication in single unit implant impressions-A three dimensional clinical study

OBJECTIVE

Comparison of soft tissue replication between conventional and digital impressions for definitive single unit implant rehabilitation in the esthetic zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six patients were recruited according to inclusion criteria for this cross-over pilot study and submitted to a conventional silicone implant impression with customized coping and a digital impression with an intraoral scanner. Stereolithography files obtained from the same patient were superimposed with appropriate software and trueness evaluated between methods at predetermined locations (56 in hard and soft tissues and 18 in the emergence profile, per patient). Results were presented as mean root mean square (RMS) ± 95% confidence interval and effect size calculated with Hedges' g ± 95%. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis were performed when appropriate and α was set at .05.

RESULTS

Trueness between methods equated to 51.08[45.68;56.47] μm and 60.46[52.29;68.62] μm in hard and soft tissues, respectively. Soft tissue replication by intraoral scanner acquisition corresponded to a statistically significant RMS of 243.89[209.15;278.63] μm equating to a Hedges' g of 1.52[1.22;1.82] which corresponded to a large effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed method could be considered for soft tissues assessment and the results suggest that intraoral impression techniques produce statistically significant changes in peri-implant soft tissue replication, although below the clinically detectable threshold.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The proposed technique allows for the 3D determination of peri-implant tissues changes in digital models with higher sensitivity than visual techniques, thus presenting itself as a promising alternative in clinical studies and that the use of an intraoral scanner obtained significant differences in the soft tissue emergence profile replication when compared with the gold standard.