Cargando…

In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study compared the dimensional accuracy of conventional impressions (CI) with that of digital impressions (DI) in a partially edentulous maxilla. DIs were made by two intraoral scanners, Omnicam (OC) and Primescan (PS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CI and both intraoral scanners...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Waldecker, Moritz, Rues, Stefan, Awounvo Awounvo, Junior Sinclair, Rammelsberg, Peter, Bömicke, Wolfgang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9643200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35778534
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04598-4
_version_ 1784826468285546496
author Waldecker, Moritz
Rues, Stefan
Awounvo Awounvo, Junior Sinclair
Rammelsberg, Peter
Bömicke, Wolfgang
author_facet Waldecker, Moritz
Rues, Stefan
Awounvo Awounvo, Junior Sinclair
Rammelsberg, Peter
Bömicke, Wolfgang
author_sort Waldecker, Moritz
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study compared the dimensional accuracy of conventional impressions (CI) with that of digital impressions (DI) in a partially edentulous maxilla. DIs were made by two intraoral scanners, Omnicam (OC) and Primescan (PS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CI and both intraoral scanners were used to take 30 impressions of two identical reference models. CIs were poured with type 4 gypsum and the saw-cut models were digitized. The reference models simulated a maxilla with six prepared teeth that accommodated a cross-arch fixed partial denture. Center points of five precision balls and center points at the margin level of each prepared tooth were used to detect changes in dimensions and tooth axis between the reference model and the scans. RESULTS: For DI, the largest deviations (176 µm for OC and 122 µm for PS) occurred over the cross-arch. For CI, the largest deviation (118 µm) occurred over the anterior segment. For shorter distances up to a quadrant, DI was superior to CI. For longer scan distances, DI was comparable (2 sextant and anterior segment) or inferior (cross-arch) to CI. Vertical and tooth axis deviations were significantly smaller for CI than for DI (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The impression method affected the impression accuracy of a partially edentulous maxilla with prepared teeth. DI is recommended for scans up to a quadrant. Larger scan volumes are not yet suitable for fabricating a fixed partial denture because of the high scatter of accuracy values. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In contrast to conventional impressions, digital impressions lead to comparable or better results concerning scans up to a quadrant. Consequently, for larger scan volumes, several smaller scans should be performed or, if restoration-related not possible, it is recommended to take conventional impressions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9643200
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96432002022-11-15 In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla Waldecker, Moritz Rues, Stefan Awounvo Awounvo, Junior Sinclair Rammelsberg, Peter Bömicke, Wolfgang Clin Oral Investig Original Article OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study compared the dimensional accuracy of conventional impressions (CI) with that of digital impressions (DI) in a partially edentulous maxilla. DIs were made by two intraoral scanners, Omnicam (OC) and Primescan (PS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: CI and both intraoral scanners were used to take 30 impressions of two identical reference models. CIs were poured with type 4 gypsum and the saw-cut models were digitized. The reference models simulated a maxilla with six prepared teeth that accommodated a cross-arch fixed partial denture. Center points of five precision balls and center points at the margin level of each prepared tooth were used to detect changes in dimensions and tooth axis between the reference model and the scans. RESULTS: For DI, the largest deviations (176 µm for OC and 122 µm for PS) occurred over the cross-arch. For CI, the largest deviation (118 µm) occurred over the anterior segment. For shorter distances up to a quadrant, DI was superior to CI. For longer scan distances, DI was comparable (2 sextant and anterior segment) or inferior (cross-arch) to CI. Vertical and tooth axis deviations were significantly smaller for CI than for DI (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The impression method affected the impression accuracy of a partially edentulous maxilla with prepared teeth. DI is recommended for scans up to a quadrant. Larger scan volumes are not yet suitable for fabricating a fixed partial denture because of the high scatter of accuracy values. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In contrast to conventional impressions, digital impressions lead to comparable or better results concerning scans up to a quadrant. Consequently, for larger scan volumes, several smaller scans should be performed or, if restoration-related not possible, it is recommended to take conventional impressions. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-07-01 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC9643200/ /pubmed/35778534 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04598-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Waldecker, Moritz
Rues, Stefan
Awounvo Awounvo, Junior Sinclair
Rammelsberg, Peter
Bömicke, Wolfgang
In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla
title In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla
title_full In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla
title_fullStr In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla
title_full_unstemmed In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla
title_short In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla
title_sort in vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions in the partially edentulous maxilla
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9643200/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35778534
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04598-4
work_keys_str_mv AT waldeckermoritz invitroaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimpressionsinthepartiallyedentulousmaxilla
AT ruesstefan invitroaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimpressionsinthepartiallyedentulousmaxilla
AT awounvoawounvojuniorsinclair invitroaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimpressionsinthepartiallyedentulousmaxilla
AT rammelsbergpeter invitroaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimpressionsinthepartiallyedentulousmaxilla
AT bomickewolfgang invitroaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimpressionsinthepartiallyedentulousmaxilla