Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Clinical evaluation of the precision of interocclusal registration by using digital and conventional techniques

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Although studies have evaluated the accuracy of data obtained by intraoral scanners (IOSs), studies on the precision of interocclusal registrations made with IOSs are lacking.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the precision of IOS interocclusal registration with that of conventional methods with a silicone impression material and a gypsum cast.

      Material and methods

      Eight participants with complete natural dentitions were enrolled. Images of their maxillary and mandibular quadrant arches and their interocclusal relationship were scanned with 2 IOSs: the 3M True Definition Scanner and the TRIOS Scanner 3. In the conventional method, impressions of complete-arch dentition and quadrant-arch dentition were made with a silicone impression material, and gypsum casts were fabricated, mounted on a dental articulator related with a silicone interocclusal record, and scanned with a 3D laboratory scanner. These procedures were repeated 4 times, and 4 sets of interocclusal registration data in standard tessellation language (STL) format were generated for each condition. Interocclusal registration precision was evaluated by determining the discrepancy of the STL data between repeated measurements by using the best-fit-algorithm method.

      Results

      The average discrepancies for all participants were 25 ±12 μm for the True Definition, 31 ±7 μm for the TRIOS 3, 154 ±59 μm for the complete arch, and 128 ±33 μm for the quadrant arch. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that the effect of the impression methods on the discrepancy was statistically significant (P<.001). The Steel-Dwass test showed that both digital scan methods exhibited significantly smaller discrepancies than the 2 conventional methods (P=.005).

      Conclusions

      These results suggest that the intermaxillary relationship captured by the digital scan method by using IOSs had better precision than that obtained by the conventional method.
      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

        • Wismeijer D.
        • Mans R.
        • van Genuchten M.
        • Reijers H.A.
        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
        • Yuzbasioglu E.
        • Kurt H.
        • Turunc R.
        • Bilir H.
        Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes.
        BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 10
        • Kamimura E.
        • Tanaka S.
        • Takaba M.
        • Tachi K.
        • Baba K.
        In vivo evaluation of inter operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques.
        PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0179188
        • Shah S.
        • Sundaram G.
        • Bartlett D.
        • Sherriff M.
        The use of a 3D laser scanner using superimpositional software to assess the accuracy of impression techniques.
        J Dent. 2004; 32: 653-658
        • Arslan Y.
        • Karakoca Nemli S.
        • Bankoğlu Güngör M.
        • Tamam E.
        • Yılmaz H.
        Evaluation of biogeneric design techniques with CEREC CAD/CAM system.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7: 431-436
        • Di Fiore A.
        • Meneghello R.
        • Graiff L.
        • Savio G.
        • Vigolo P.
        • Monaco C.
        • et al.
        Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 396-403
        • Eriksson A.
        • Ockert-Eriksson G.
        • Lockowandt P.
        • Eriksson O.
        Clinical factors and clinical variation influencing the reproducibility of interocclusal recording methods.
        Br Dent J. 2002; 192: 391-395
        • Zarbah M.A.
        Accuracy of cast articulation: A literature review.
        Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2018; 8: 151-156
        • Patzelt S.B.
        • Emmanouilidi A.
        • Stampf S.
        • Strub J.R.
        • Att W.
        Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 1687-1694
        • Nedelcu R.
        • Olsson P.
        • Nyström I.
        • Rydén J.
        • Thor A.
        Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method.
        J Dent. 2018; 69: 110-118
        • Ender A.
        • Mehl A.
        Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
        • Jeong I.D.
        • Lee J.J.
        • Jeon J.H.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Kim H.Y.
        • Kim W.C.
        Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: An in vitro study.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 755-759
        • Lee S.J.
        • Betensky R.A.
        • Gianneschi G.E.
        • Gallucci G.O.
        Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 715-719
        • Renne W.
        • Ludlow M.
        • Fryml J.
        • Schurch Z.
        • Mennito A.
        • Kessler R.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
        • Kuhr F.
        • Schmidt A.
        • Rehmann P.
        • Wöstmann B.
        A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients.
        J Dent. 2016; 55: 68-74
        • Ajioka H.
        • Kihara H.
        • Odaira C.
        • Kobayashi T.
        • Kondo H.
        Examination of the position accuracy of implant abutments reproduced by intra-oral optical impression.
        PLoS One. 2016; 11: e0164048
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Ender A.
        • Attin T.
        • Mehl A.
        Accuracy of buccal scan procedures for the registration of habitual intercuspation.
        Oper Dent. 2018; 43: 573-580
        • Jaschouz S.
        • Mehl A.
        Reproducibility of habitual intercuspation in vivo.
        J Dent. 2014; 42: 210-218
        • Ender A.
        • Zimmermann M.
        • Attin T.
        • Mehl A.
        In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions.
        Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20: 1495-1504
        • Miyoshi K.
        • Tanaka S.
        • Yokoyama S.
        • Sanda M.
        • Baba K.
        Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020; 31: 74-83
        • Sousa M.V.
        • Vasconcelos E.C.
        • Janson G.
        • Garib D.
        • Pinzan A.
        Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142: 269-273
        • Quaas S.
        • Rudolph H.
        • Luthardt R.G.
        Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations.
        J Dent. 2007; 35: 903-908
        • Treesh J.C.
        • Liacouras P.C.
        • Taft R.M.
        • Brooks D.I.
        • Raiciulescu S.
        • Ellert D.O.
        • et al.
        Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 382-388
      1. DIN ISO 5725-1: 1997-11. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—Part 1: General principles and definitions.
        International Organization for Standardization, ISO 5725-1, 1994
        • Miura H.
        • Hasegawa S.
        • Okada D.
        • Ishihara H.
        The measurement of physiological tooth displacement in function.
        J Med Dent Sci. 1998; 45: 103-115
        • Korioth T.W.
        • Hannam A.G.
        Deformation of the human mandible during simulated tooth clenching.
        J Dent Res. 1994; 73: 56-66
        • Chen D.C.
        • Lai Y.L.
        • Chi L.Y.
        • Lee S.Y.
        Contributing factors of mandibular deformation during mouth opening.
        J Dent. 2000; 28: 583-588
        • Asadzadeh N.
        • Madani A.S.
        • Mirmortazavi A.
        • Sabooni M.R.
        • Shibani V.
        Mandibular width and length deformation during mouth opening in female dental students.
        J Appl Sci. 2012; 12: 1865-1868
        • Krahenbuhl J.T.
        • Cho S.H.
        • Irelan J.
        • Bansal N.K.
        Accuracy and precision of occlusal contacts of stereolithographic casts mounted by digital interocclusal registrations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 231-236
        • Solaberrieta E.
        • Otegi J.R.
        • Goicoechea N.
        • Brizuela A.
        • Pradies G.
        Comparison of a conventional and virtual occlusal record.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 92-97