Cargando…

Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study

AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of conventional implant impressions with digital impression techniques made using two different intraoral scanners. SETTING AND DESIGN: In-Vitro study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A scan of master cast containing four implants was made using two i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shaikh, Mohsin, Lakha, Tabrez, Kheur, Supriya, Qamri, Batul, Kheur, Mohit
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9709861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36511075
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_52_22
_version_ 1784841251435053056
author Shaikh, Mohsin
Lakha, Tabrez
Kheur, Supriya
Qamri, Batul
Kheur, Mohit
author_facet Shaikh, Mohsin
Lakha, Tabrez
Kheur, Supriya
Qamri, Batul
Kheur, Mohit
author_sort Shaikh, Mohsin
collection PubMed
description AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of conventional implant impressions with digital impression techniques made using two different intraoral scanners. SETTING AND DESIGN: In-Vitro study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A scan of master cast containing four implants was made using two intraoral scanners: CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, USA) and 3Shape Trios (Copenhagen, Denmark) with PEEK scan bodies attached to the implants. Model was scanned ten times using different scanners. The accuracy of the chairside scanners was compared with highly accurate laboratory scanner. The scans were transferred into the software (Geomagic Control X 20, 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for analysis. The linear deviations and the angular deviations between the scans (scan of each model made using high-definition scanner and the master model scan) were calculated to determine the accuracy. Trueness was used as a parameter to compare the accuracy of different scanners (comparing test and reference). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analysis of variance was performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test for multiple group comparisons. RESULTS: Distribution of the mean overall absolute linear deviation was significantly lower in the conventional impression group compared to the CEREC Primescan scanner group and 3Shape Trios group (P < 0.05 for both). Distribution of the mean overall absolute linear deviation was significantly lower in the CEREC Primescan scanner group compared to the 3Shape Trios group (P < 0.05). Distribution of the mean overall absolute angular deviation did not differ between the three groups (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Conventional impressions showed significantly greater accuracy compared to the digital impressions made with both the above intraoral scanners for implant-supported restoration of an edentulous arch. In addition, the digital impressions with the CEREC Primescan scanner showed greater accuracy as compared to the 3Shape Trios scanner.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9709861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97098612023-10-01 Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study Shaikh, Mohsin Lakha, Tabrez Kheur, Supriya Qamri, Batul Kheur, Mohit J Indian Prosthodont Soc Research AIM: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of conventional implant impressions with digital impression techniques made using two different intraoral scanners. SETTING AND DESIGN: In-Vitro study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A scan of master cast containing four implants was made using two intraoral scanners: CEREC Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, USA) and 3Shape Trios (Copenhagen, Denmark) with PEEK scan bodies attached to the implants. Model was scanned ten times using different scanners. The accuracy of the chairside scanners was compared with highly accurate laboratory scanner. The scans were transferred into the software (Geomagic Control X 20, 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for analysis. The linear deviations and the angular deviations between the scans (scan of each model made using high-definition scanner and the master model scan) were calculated to determine the accuracy. Trueness was used as a parameter to compare the accuracy of different scanners (comparing test and reference). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analysis of variance was performed with Bonferroni's post hoc test for multiple group comparisons. RESULTS: Distribution of the mean overall absolute linear deviation was significantly lower in the conventional impression group compared to the CEREC Primescan scanner group and 3Shape Trios group (P < 0.05 for both). Distribution of the mean overall absolute linear deviation was significantly lower in the CEREC Primescan scanner group compared to the 3Shape Trios group (P < 0.05). Distribution of the mean overall absolute angular deviation did not differ between the three groups (P > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION: Conventional impressions showed significantly greater accuracy compared to the digital impressions made with both the above intraoral scanners for implant-supported restoration of an edentulous arch. In addition, the digital impressions with the CEREC Primescan scanner showed greater accuracy as compared to the 3Shape Trios scanner. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9709861/ /pubmed/36511075 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_52_22 Text en Copyright: © 2022 The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Research
Shaikh, Mohsin
Lakha, Tabrez
Kheur, Supriya
Qamri, Batul
Kheur, Mohit
Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study
title Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study
title_full Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study
title_fullStr Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study
title_short Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study
title_sort do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? an in vitro study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9709861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36511075
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_52_22
work_keys_str_mv AT shaikhmohsin dodigitalimpressionshaveagreateraccuracyforfullarchimplantsupportedreconstructionscomparedtoconventionalimpressionsaninvitrostudy
AT lakhatabrez dodigitalimpressionshaveagreateraccuracyforfullarchimplantsupportedreconstructionscomparedtoconventionalimpressionsaninvitrostudy
AT kheursupriya dodigitalimpressionshaveagreateraccuracyforfullarchimplantsupportedreconstructionscomparedtoconventionalimpressionsaninvitrostudy
AT qamribatul dodigitalimpressionshaveagreateraccuracyforfullarchimplantsupportedreconstructionscomparedtoconventionalimpressionsaninvitrostudy
AT kheurmohit dodigitalimpressionshaveagreateraccuracyforfullarchimplantsupportedreconstructionscomparedtoconventionalimpressionsaninvitrostudy