Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Accuracy of implant impression techniques with a scannable healing abutment

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Scannable healing abutments are a convenient option to facilitate impression making for implant-supported restorations. However, studies evaluating the accuracy of the impression technique with scannable healing abutments are lacking.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of implant impression techniques with scannable healing abutments.

      Materials and methods

      A partially edentulous mandibular dentiform model was fabricated with an epoxy resin, and implants were placed in the mandibular right second premolar and first molar areas. A maxillary dentiform model was then fabricated, and both models were mounted on an articulator. Scan data were obtained from the mounted models and set as the reference scans. The experimental models were divided into 4 groups (n=10). The conventional pick-up impression technique and definitive casts were used in group CI. The scan data from the definitive casts were obtained with a 3D model scanner. An intraoral scanner with a digital body scan was used in group DS. Group MS yielded definitive casts with dual-arch impressions with scannable healing abutments. The fabricated definitive casts were mounted and scanned with a 3D cast scanner. Intraoral scanning with scannable healing abutments was used in group IS. In all 4 groups, the interarch relationship in the maximum intercuspal position was obtained by scanning the facial aspect. The center of the implant head was set as a measurement point for linear intra-arch deviations and implant angle deviations. The mesiopalatal cusp tip of the maxillary right first molar was used to calibrate the linear interarch deviations. The data obtained from each group were compared with the data from the reference scan. As the data were not normally distributed, the Kruskal-Wallis test and Bonferroni correction were used for the analysis (α=.05).

      Results

      Group MS exhibited significantly higher deviations in linear intra-arch and implant angles compared with the other groups (P<.05). No significant difference was found between the groups in linear interarch deviations (P>.05).

      Conclusions

      The accuracy of intraoral scanning with scannable healing abutments was comparable with that of conventional pick-up impression techniques and digital scans with scan bodies. However, model scanning with scannable healing abutments may not be clinically acceptable for implant impressions.
      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 access
      One-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 Dentistry
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Monaco C.
        • Scheda L.
        • Baldissara P.
        • Zucchelli G.
        Implant digital impression in the esthetic area.
        J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 536-540
        • Mühlemann S.
        • Kraus R.D.
        • Hämmerle C.H.F.
        • Thoma D.S.
        Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: a systematic review.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 184-195
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        In–vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.
        Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 9-17
        • Gherlone E.
        • Capparé P.
        • Vinci R.
        • Ferrini F.
        • Gastaldi G.
        • Crespi R.
        Conventional versus digital impressions for “all-on-four” restorations.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 31: 324-330
        • Gherlone E.
        • Mandelli F.
        • Capparè P.
        • Pantaleo G.
        • Traini T.
        • Ferrini F.
        A 3 years retrospective study of survival for zirconia-based single crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions.
        J Dent. 2014; 42: 1151-1155
        • Alghazzawi T.F.
        Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: options for practical implementation.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 72-84
        • Kattadiyil M.T.
        • AlHelal A.
        An update on computer-engineered complete dentures: a systematic review on clinical outcomes.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 478-485
        • Lee S.J.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 24: 111-115
        • Christensen G.J.
        Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140: 1301-1304
        • Eliasson A.
        • Ortorp A.
        The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments.
        Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14: e30-e38
        • Atsuta I.
        • Ayukawa Y.
        • Kondo R.
        • Oshiro W.
        • Matsuura Y.
        • Furuhashi A.
        • et al.
        Soft tissue sealing around dental implants based on histological interpretation.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 3-11
        • Rhee Y.K.
        • Huh Y.H.
        • Cho L.R.
        • Park C.J.
        Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7: 460-467
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Hirayama H.
        • Chen C.J.
        • Ho C.H.
        • Chronopoulos V.
        • Weber H.P.
        Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1099-1105
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        • Chen C.J.
        • Hanssen S.
        • Naert I.
        • Vandenberghe B.
        Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 465-472
        • Hayashi K.
        • Chung O.
        • Park S.
        • Lee S.P.
        • Sachdeva R.C.
        • Mizoguchi I.
        Influence of standardization on the precision (reproducibility) of dental cast analysis with virtual 3-dimensional models.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 147: 373-380
        • Vigolo P.
        • Fonzi F.
        • Majzoub Z.
        • Cordioli G.
        Master cast accuracy in single-tooth implant replacement cases: an in vitro comparison. A technical note.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005; 20: 455-460
        • Kim D.Y.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Kim H.Y.
        • Kim W.C.
        Comparison and evaluation of marginal and internal gaps in cobalt-chromium alloy copings fabricated using subtractive and additive manufacturing.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2018; 62: 56-64
        • Goujat A.
        • Abouelleil H.
        • Colon P.
        • Jeannin C.
        • Pradelle N.
        • Seux D.
        • et al.
        Marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM inlay/onlay restorations: a systematic review of in vitro studies.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 121: 590-597
        • Fluegge T.
        • Att W.
        • Nelson K.
        • Metzger M.
        A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies—an experimental approach.
        J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 34-41
        • Kurz M.
        • Attin T.
        • Mehl A.
        Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19: 2035-2043
        • Li H.
        • Lyu P.
        • Wang Y.
        • Sun Y.
        Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: a laboratory study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 93-101
        • Gimenez-Gonzalez B.
        • Hassan B.
        • Özcan M.
        • Pradíes G.
        An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla.
        J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 650-655
        • Chan D.C.
        • Chung A.K.
        • Haines J.
        • Yau E.H.
        • Kuo C.C.
        The accuracy of optical scanning: influence of convergence and die preparation.
        Oper Dent. 2011; 36: 486-491
        • Koch G.K.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        • Lee S.J.
        Accuracy in the digital workflow: from data acquisition to the digitally milled cast.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 749-754
        • Liebermann A.
        • Wimmer T.
        • Schmidlin P.R.
        • Scherer H.
        • Löffler P.
        • Roos M.
        • et al.
        Physicomechanical characterization of polyetheretherketone and current esthetic dental CAD/CAM polymers after aging in different storage media.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 321-328.e2
        • Zok F.W.
        • Miserez A.
        Property maps for abrasion resistance of materials.
        Acta Mater. 2007; 55: 6365-6371
        • Hahnel S.
        • Wieser A.
        • Lang R.
        • Rosentritt M.
        Biofilm formation on the surface of modern implant abutment materials.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 1297-1301
        • Najeeb S.
        • Zafar M.S.
        • Khurshid Z.
        • Siddiqui F.
        Applications of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) in oral implantology and prosthodontics.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 12-19
        • Skirbutis G.
        • Dzingutė A.
        • Masiliūnaitė V.
        • Šulcaitė G.
        • Žilinskas J.
        A review of PEEK polymer's properties and its use in prosthodontics.
        Stomatologija. 2017; 19: 19-23