Abstract
Statement of problem
Intraoral scans and virtual interocclusal records (VIRs) are widely used for contemporary
prosthodontic treatment of patients with partial edentulism. The accuracy of VIRs
in various clinical conditions is unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate whether the span and location
of edentulous areas affect the accuracy of VIRs.
Material and methods
Five sets of master stone casts were duplicated from a typodont model (Prosthetic
Restoration Jaw Model; Nissin Dental) and then assigned into 5 study groups. Six pairs
of interarch markers were placed on the master stone casts as reference points for
measurements. The 5 study groups were group 1-Post: 1 posterior tooth missing; group
3-Post: 3 posterior teeth missing; group 6-Ant: 6 anterior teeth missing; group Bil-Post:
bilateral posterior teeth missing; and group Dent: completely dentate arch. Master
stone casts along with VIRs were scanned 10 times in each group by using an intraoral
scanner (IOS) (Dental Wings Intraoral Scanner; Dental Wings Inc). Digital measurement
of distances between the interarch markers was obtained on all digitally articulated
casts and compared with the manual measurements (with electronic calipers with an
accuracy of 0.02 mm). In addition, the differences (absolute values) between the digital
and manual measurements were calculated at the edentulous locations for the groups
1-Post, 3-Post, 6-Ant, and Bil-Post and were compared with the corresponding interarch
marker positions in the group Dent. Two-sample t tests were used for the statistical analysis (α=.05).
Results
The overall differences (mean ±standard deviation) between digital and manual measurements
were group 1-Post: 0.10 ±0.19 mm, group 3-Post: 0.28 ±0.63 mm; group 6-Ant: 0.19 ±0.20
mm; group Bil-Post: 0.28 ±0.25 mm; and group Dent: 0.05 ±0.18 mm. Group Dent was the
only group with no significant differences between digital and manual measurements
at all 6 interarch marker positions and was used as the reference to analyze the measurements
in the edentulous areas. No statistical difference was found (P=.237) at the group 1-Post's edentulous area when compared with the group Dent. In
the group 3-Post, the edentulous areas showed statistically significant difference
when compared with those of the group Dent (P=.002 and P=.003). In the group 6-Ant, the edentulous areas showed statistical differences when
compared with those of the group Dent (P=.019 and P=.008). In the group Bil-Post, only 1 side of the edentulous areas showed statistical
differences when compared with group Dent (P=.006 and P=.034).
Conclusions
The span and location of edentulous areas impact the accuracy of VIRs. For a single
missing posterior tooth, VIRs could achieve a high level of accuracy comparable with
that of the dentate condition. Unilateral and bilateral extended edentulous spans
with 3 or more missing posterior teeth and the extended edentulous span in the anterior
region all affected the accuracy of VIRs.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- An alternative digital workflow for fabricating a mandibular implant-supported complete fixed dental prosthesis with limited restorative space: A clinical report.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 1-4
- Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 1113-1118
- Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 102-109
- Use of intraoral digital scanning for a CAD/CAM-fabricated milled bar and superstructure framework for an implant-supported, removable complete dental prosthesis.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 509-515
- In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1495-1504
- Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1401-1406
- Time-efficiency analysis comparing digital and conventional workflows for implant crowns: a prospective clinical crossover trial.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 1047-1053
- Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for implant restorations.J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e530-e535
- Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 171-175
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors.Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26: 101-121
- Improved digital transfer of the maxillary cast to a virtual articulator.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 921-924
- Three-dimensional accuracy of digital static interocclusal registration by three intraoral scanner systems.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 120-128
- Determining the requirements, section quantity, and dimension of the virtual occlusal record.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 52-56
- Intraoral digital impressions for virtual occlusal records: section quantity and dimensions.Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016 (7173824)
- Dimensional accuracy of optical bite registration in single and multiple unit restorations.Oper Dent. 2013; 38: 309-315
- In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 313-320
- Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 574-579
- Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible.J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 347-352
- Monolithic implant-supported lithium disilicate (LS2) crowns in a complete digital workflow: A prospective clinical trial with a 2-year follow-up.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2017; 19: 505-511
- Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 1304-1306
- Assessment of CAD-CAM zirconia crowns designed with 2 different methods: A self-controlled clinical trial.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 686-692
- Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics.Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 791-797
Article info
Publication history
Published online: October 28, 2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
