Abstract
Statement of problem
Conventional implant impressions by using elastomeric impression material have been
reported as a more reliable technique for a complete-arch implant record compared
with intraoral scanner procedures. Photogrammetry technology may provide a reliable
alternative to digital scanning or a conventional impression; however, its accuracy
remains unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the implant abutment
replica positions of the definitive cast with the implant abutment replica positions
obtained by the conventional technique, photogrammetry, and 2 intraoral scanners.
Material and methods
An edentulous maxillary cast with 6 implant abutment replicas (RC analog for screw-retained
abutment straight) was prepared. Three impression techniques were performed: the conventional
impression technique (CNV group) by using a custom tray elastomeric impression procedure
after splinting the impression copings at room temperature (23°C), photogrammetry
(PG group) technology (Icam4D), digital scans by using 2 different IOSs following
the manufacturer′s recommended scanning protocol, namely IOS-1 (iTero Element) and
IOS-2 (TRIOS 3) groups (n=10). A coordinate measuring machine (CMM Contura G2 10/16/06
RDS) was used to measure the implant abutment replica positions of the definitive
casts and to compare the linear discrepancies at the x-, y-, and z-axes and the angular
distortion of each implant abutment replica position by using a computer aided-design software
program (Geomagic) and the best fit technique. The 3D linear gap discrepancy was calculated.
Measurements were repeated 3 times. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were
not normally distributed; therefore, the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze the
data, followed by pairwise Mann-Whitney U tests (α=.05).
Results
Significant y-axis linear and XY and YZ angular discrepancies were found among the
CNV, PG, IOS-1, and IOS-2 groups (P<.05). The PG group obtained a significantly higher distortion on the y-axis and 3D
gap compared with all the remaining groups (P=.004). The 3D discrepancy of the CNV group was 11.7 μm, of the IOS-1 group was 18.4
μm, of the IOS-2 was 21.1 μm, and of the PG group was 77.6 μm. In all groups, the
interquartile range was higher than the median errors from the discrepancies measured
from the definitive cast, indicating that the relative precision was low.
Conclusions
The conventional technique reported the lowest 3D discrepancy for the implant abutment
position translation capabilities of all the implant techniques evaluated. The intraoral
scanners tested provided no significant differences in linear distortion compared
with the conventional method. However, the photogrammetry system tested provided the
least accurate values, with the highest 3D discrepancy for the implant abutment positions
among all the groups.
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
- Digital vs conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 111-115
- Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters.Implant Dent. 2015; 24: 498-504
- Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience, implant angulation, and depth.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 853-862
- Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10: 101-120
- Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 92
- Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 574-579
- Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws.J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144: 914-920
- The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 124-131
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 intraoral scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparison.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
- Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions.J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10: e361-e366
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors.Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26: 101-121
- Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses.J Oral Sci. 2018; 60: 1-7
- Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.Dent Mater J. 2018; 37: 628-633
- Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 107-113
- Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.J Dent. 2018; 69: 110-118
- Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient.Evid Based Dent. 2017; 18: 24-25
- Intraoral scanners technologies: A review to make a successful impression.J Healthc Eng. 2017; : 1-9
- Evaluating causes of error in landmark-based data collection using scanners.PLOS One. 2017; : 1-37
- Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 221-230
- Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
- Effect of imaging powder and CAD/CAM stone types on the marginal gap of zirconia crowns.J Am Dent Assoc. 2015; 146: 111-120
- A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by two intraoral scanners: effects on tooth irregularities and scanning direction.Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 3-12
- Comparative analysis on reproducibility among 5 intraoral scanners: sectional analysis according to restoration type and preparation outline form.J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8: 354-362
- Influence of abutment tooth geometry on the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 392-399
- Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 93-101
- Intraoral digital scans- part-1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 372-378
- Intraoral digital scans- part-2: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 575-580
- Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner.J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 107-113
- Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS pod scanner.Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
- Photogrammetric measurements of implant positions. Description of a technique to determine the fit between implants and superstructures.Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5: 30-36
- Photogrammetry - an alternative to conventional impressions in implant dentistry? A clinical pilot study.Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12: 363-368
- Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7: 43-50
- Integration of 3D anatomical data obtained by CT imaging and 3D optical scanning for computer aided implant surgery.BMC Med Imaging. 2011; 11: 5
- Impression of multiple implants using photogrammetry: description of technique and case presentation.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2014; 19: e366-e371
- Close range photogrammetry - a clinical dental research tool.J Dent. 1992; 20: 235-239
- Photogrammetry techniques for dentistry analysis, planning and visualization.in: The international archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences. Vol. XXXVII. 2008: 783-788 (Part B5. Beijing)
- Application of photogrammetry for analysis of occlusal contacts.J Prosthod Res. 2013; 57: 122-128
- The application of multi-baseline digital close-range photogrammetry in three-dimensional imaging and measurement of dental casts.PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0178858
- An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 243-251
- Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 703-711
- Photogrammetry impression technique: A case history report.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 71-73
- A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: A randomized controlled pilot clinical trial.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 596-603
- Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 506-510
- ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measuring methods and results. Part-I: General principles and definitions. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin1994
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
- Precision of intraoral digital impressions with iTero and extraoral digitalization with iTero and a model scanner.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144: 47
- Impression technique for a complete-arch prosthesis with multiple implants using additive manufacturing technologies.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 714-720
- A Comparative study of the fitness and trueness of a three-unit fixed dental prosthesis fabricated using two digital workflows.Applied Sciences. 2019; 9: 1-12
- Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface.J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75: 314-325
- Dimensional changes of dental impression materials by thermal changes.J Biomed Mater Res. 2001; 58: 217-220
Article info
Publication history
Published online: May 06, 2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
