Advertisement
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Conventional and digital complete-arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy

Published:December 18, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.028

      Abstract

      Statement of problem

      Varying complete-arch digital-implant–scanning techniques have been described, but their accuracy remains uncertain.

      Purpose

      The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effect of the implant angulation and impression method (conventional, intraoral digital scan, intraoral scan with a splinting framework, and combining cone beam computed tomography [CBCT] and intraoral scan) on the accuracy of complete arch implant recording.

      Material and methods

      The following 2 casts were obtained: one with 4 parallel (P group) and the other with 4 angled (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group). Both the casts were digitized (7Series Scanner) (control file). The following 4 subgroups were created: conventional polyether impression with a splinted framework (CNV subgroup), intraoral scan (IOS subgroup), intraoral scan with a splinting framework (S-IOS subgroup), and intraoral scan combined with CBCT scan (CBCT-IOS subgroup) (n=10). For each file, an implant-supported bar was designed and imported into a program (Netfabb) to perform linear and angular interimplant abutment measurements. Two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and Tukey tests were selected to examine the data (α=.05).

      Results

      Implant angulation (P=.010) and impression method (P=.003) significantly influenced the linear trueness. The P group (112 μm) obtained better linear trueness than the NP group (144 μm). The CNV subgroup obtained the best linear trueness, while the IOS and CBCT-IOS showed the worst trueness. Group (P<.001) significantly influenced angular trueness. Group (P=.009) and subgroup (P<.001) influenced the linear precision. The P group (72 μm) obtained better linear precision than the NP group (91 μm). The IOS subgroup obtained the best linear precision. Group (P=.034) significantly influenced the angular precision. The P group (0.46 degrees) had higher angular precision compared with the NP group (0.60 degrees).

      Conclusions

      Implant angulation and the impression methods tested, impacted the accuracy of the complete-arch implant recording. Parallel implants had better trueness and precision values than nonparallel implants. The conventional impression method showed the best trueness and precision. Among the digital implant scan methods assessed, the S-IOS and CBCT-IOS subgroups acquired significantly better trueness and precision than the IOS subgroup.
      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

        • Tabesh M.
        • Nejatidanesh F.
        • Savabi G.
        • Davoudi A.
        • Savabi O.
        • Mirmohammadi H.
        Marginal adaptation of zirconia complete-coverage fixed dental restorations made from digital scans or conventional impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 603-610
        • Chochlidakis K.
        • Papaspyridakos P.
        • Tsigarida A.
        • et al.
        Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 281-286
        • Giachetti L.
        • Sarti C.
        • Cinelli F.
        • Russo D.S.
        Accuracy of digital impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review of clinical studies.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2020; 33: 192-201
        • Revilla-Leon M.
        • Frazier K.
        • da Costa J.B.
        • et al.
        Intraoral scanners: an American Dental Association Clinical Evaluators Panel survey.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 2021; 152: 669-670.e2
        • Medina-Sotomayor P.
        • Pascual-Moscardó A.
        • Camps I.
        Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions.
        J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10: e361-e366
        • Joda T.
        • Zarone F.
        • Ferrari M.
        The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review.
        BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 124
        • Renne W.
        • Ludlow M.
        • Fryml J.
        • 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
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Jiang P.
        • Sadeghpour M.
        • et al.
        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
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Subramanian S.G.
        • Özcan M.
        • Krishnamurthy V.R.
        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
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Subramanian S.G.
        • Att W.
        • Krishnamurthy V.R.
        Analysis of different illuminance of the room lighting condition on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner.
        J Prosthodont. 2021; 30: 157-162
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Gohil A.
        • Barmak A.B.
        • et al.
        Influence of ambient temperature changes on intraoral scanning accuracy.
        J Prosthet Dent. 21 February 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.012
        • Moon Y.G.
        • Lee K.M.
        Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scans between complete-arch scan and quadrant scan.
        Prog Orthod. 2020; 21: 36
        • Kim M.K.
        • Son K.
        • Yu B.Y.
        • Lee K.B.
        Effect of the volumetric dimensions of a complete arch on the accuracy of scanners.
        J Adv Prosthodont. 2020; 12: 361-368
        • Oh K.C.
        • Park J.M.
        • Moon H.S.
        Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 518-523
        • Müller P.
        • Ender A.
        • Joda T.
        • Katsoulis J.
        Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner.
        Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
        • Waldecker M.
        • Rues S.
        • Trebing C.
        • Behnisch R.
        • Rammelsberg P.
        • Bömicke W.
        Effects of training on the execution of complete-arch scans. Part 2: scanning accuracy.
        Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34: 27-36
        • Lim J.H.
        • Park J.M.
        • Kim M.
        • Heo S.J.
        • Myung J.Y.
        Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
        • Kim J.
        • Park J.M.
        • Kim M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 221-230
        • Shin S.H.
        • Yu H.S.
        • Cha J.Y.
        • Kwon J.S.
        • Hwang C.J.
        Scanning accuracy of bracket features and slot base angle in different bracket materials by four intraoral scanners: an in vitro study.
        Materials (Basel). 2021; 14: 365
        • Jin-Young Kim R.
        • Benic G.I.
        • Park J.M.
        Trueness of intraoral scanners in digitizing specific locations at the margin and intaglio surfaces of intracoronal preparations.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 779-786
        • Anh J.W.
        • Park J.M.
        • Chun Y.S.
        • Kim M.
        • Kim M.
        A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by 2 digital intraoral scanners: effects of tooth irregularity and scanning direction.
        Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 3-12
        • 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
        • Basaki K.
        • Alkumru H.
        • De Souza G.
        • Finer Y.
        Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis.
        Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32: 792-799
        • Carneiro Pereira A.L.
        • Medeiros V.R.
        • da Fonte Porto Carreiro A.
        Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 749-755
        • Lin W.S.
        • Harris B.T.
        • Elathamna E.N.
        • Abdel-Azim T.
        • Morton D.
        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
        • Gómez-Polo M.
        • Álvarez F.
        • Ortega R.
        • et al.
        Influence of the implant scan body bevel location, implant angulation and position on intraoral scanning accuracy: an in vitro study.
        J Dent. 2022; 121: 104122
        • Gómez-Polo M.
        • Sallorenzo A.
        • Ortega R.
        • et al.
        Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans.
        J Prosthet Dent. 22 March 2022; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.018
        • Zhang Y.J.
        • Shi J.Y.
        • Qian S.J.
        • Qiao S.C.
        • Lai H.C.
        Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: a systematic review.
        Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2021; 14: 157-179
        • Choi Y.D.
        • Lee K.E.
        • Mai H.N.
        • Lee D.H.
        Effects of scan body exposure and operator on the accuracy of image matching of implant impressions with scan bodies.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 379.e1-379.e6
        • Wulfman C.
        • Naveau A.
        • Rignon-Bret C.
        Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 161-167
        • Zhang Y.J.
        • Shi J.Y.
        • Qian S.J.
        • Qiao S.C.
        • Lai H.C.
        Accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions taken using intraoral scanners and related variables: a systematic review.
        Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2021; 14: 157-179
        • Carneiro Pereira A.L.
        • Medeiros V.R.
        • da Fonte Porto Carreiro A.
        Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 749-755
        • Rutkūnas V.
        • Gečiauskaitė A.
        • Jegelevičius D.
        • Vaitiekūnas M.
        Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.
        Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10: 101-120
        • Motel C.
        • Kirchner E.
        • Adler W.
        • Wichmann M.
        • Matta R.E.
        Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study.
        J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 309-314
        • Paratelli A.
        • Vania S.
        • Gómez-Polo C.
        • Ortega R.
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Gómez-Polo M.
        Techniques to improve the accuracy of complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans: a systematic review.
        J Prosthet Dent. 27 October 2021; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.08.018
        • Iturrate M.
        • Eguiraun H.
        • Solaberrieta E.
        Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-an in vitro study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 1250-1258
        • Roig E.
        • Roig M.
        • Garza L.C.
        • Costa S.
        • Maia P.
        • Espona J.
        Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: a pilot clinical trial.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 128: 404-414
        • Pan Y.
        • Tsoi J.K.H.
        • Lam W.Y.
        • Zhao K.
        • Pow E.H.
        Improving intraoral implant scanning with a novel auxiliary device: an in-vitro study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021; 32: 1466-1473
        • Gómez-Polo M.
        • Ballesteros J.
        • Padilla P.P.
        • Pulido P.P.
        • Revilla-León M.
        • Ortega R.
        Merging intraoral scans and CBCT: a novel technique for improving the accuracy of 3D digital models for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.
        Int J Comput Dent. 2021; 24: 117-123
        • Corominas-Delgado C.
        • Espona J.
        • Lorente-Gascón M.
        • Real-Voltas F.
        • Roig M.
        • Costa-Palau S.
        Digital implant impressions by cone-beam computerized tomography: a pilot study.
        Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 1407-1413
        • Gómez-Polo M.
        • Ballesteros J.
        • Perales-Padilla P.
        • Perales-Pulido P.
        • Gómez-Polo C.
        • Ortega R.
        Guided implant scanning: a procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 135-139
        • Schwedhelm E.R.
        • Lepe X.
        Fracture strength of type IV and type V die stone as a function of time.
        J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78: 554-559
        • Ma J.
        • Rubenstein J.E.
        Complete arch implant impression technique.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2012; 107: 405-410
        • Kim K.M.
        • Lee J.S.
        • Kim K.N.
        • Shin S.W.
        Dimensional changes of dental impression materials by thermal changes.
        J Biomed Mater Res. 2001; 58: 217-220
        • Kim R.J.
        • Park J.M.
        • Shim J.S.
        Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation.
        J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 895-903.e1
        • Medina-Sotomayor P.
        • Pascual-Moscardó A.
        • Camps I.
        Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions.
        PLoS One. 2018; 13e0202916
        • Mangano F.G.
        • Hauschild U.
        • Veronesi G.
        • Imburgia M.
        • Mangano C.
        • Admakin O.
        Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study.
        BMC Oral Health. 2019; 19: 101
        • International Organization for Standardization
        ISO 5725-1:1994. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - part 1: general principles and definitions.
        (Available at:)
        • International Organization for Standardization
        ISO 20896-1:2019. Dentistry — digital impression devices — part 1: methods for assessing accuracy.
        (Available at:)