Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

被引:5
|
作者
Cheng, Jing [1 ]
Zhang, Haidong [2 ,3 ,4 ,5 ]
Liu, Hailin [6 ]
Li, Junying [7 ]
Wang, Hom-Lay [8 ,10 ]
Tao, Xian [9 ,11 ]
机构
[1] Xiamen Med Coll, Stomatol Hosp, Dept Gen Dent, Xiamen Key Lab Stomatol Dis Diag & Treatment, Xiamen, Peoples R China
[2] Peking Univ, Sch & Hosp Stomatol, Dept Periodontol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[3] Natl Ctr Stomatol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[4] Natl Clin Res Ctr Oral Dis, Beijing, Peoples R China
[5] Natl Engn Lab Digital & Mat Technol Stomatol, Beijing, Peoples R China
[6] Jingpin Med Technol Beijing Co Ltd, Beijing, Peoples R China
[7] Univ Michigan, Dept Biol & Mat Sci & Prosthodont, Sch Dent, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[8] Univ Michigan, Sch Dent, Dept Periodont & Oral Med, Ann Arbor, MI USA
[9] Stomatol Hosp, Dept Prosthodont, Xiamen Key Lab Stomatol Dis Diag & Treatment, Xiamen Med Coll, Xiamen, Peoples R China
[10] Univ Michigan, Dept Periodont & Oral Med, Sch Dent, 1011 North Univ Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
[11] Xiamen Med Coll, Stomatol Hosp, Dept Prosthodont, 1309 Lvling Rd, Xiamen 361008, Fujian, Peoples R China
关键词
accuracy; digital impression; intraoral scanning; stereophotogrammetry; MULTIPLE IMPLANTS; PART I; MISFIT; PROSTHESES; POSITIONS; SURVIVAL; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1111/clr.14252
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry. Materials and Methods: An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best-fit method was then applied in the computer-aided design (CAD) software to compute the three-dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations. Results: Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05). Conclusions: Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross-arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.
引用
收藏
页码:560 / 572
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP) for full-arch implant impressions: An in vitro comparison to conventional impression, intraoral scan, and intraoral scan with scan-aid
    Li, Junying
    Chen, Zhaozhao
    Nava, Paolo
    Yang, Shengtao
    Calatrava, Javier
    Wang, Hom-Lay
    CLINICAL IMPLANT DENTISTRY AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [2] Evaluation of Intraoral Full-Arch Scan versus Conventional Preliminary Impression
    Janosi, Kinga Maria
    Cerghizan, Diana
    Martha, Krisztina Ildiko
    Elekes, Eva
    Szakacs, Brigitta
    Elekes, Zoltan
    Kovacs, Alpar
    Szasz, Andrea
    Muresan, Izabella
    Hantoiu, Liana Georgiana
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2023, 12 (17)
  • [3] The accuracy of conventional versus digital (intraoral scanner or photogrammetry) impression techniques in full-arch implant-supported prostheses: a systematic review
    Joensahakij, Nitchakul
    Serichetaphongse, Pravej
    Chengprapakorn, Wareeratn
    EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY, 2024, : 216 - 217
  • [4] Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study
    Mangano, Francesco Guido
    Admakin, Oleg
    Bonacina, Matteo
    Lerner, Henriette
    Rutkunas, Vygandas
    Mangano, Carlo
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2020, 20 (01)
  • [5] Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study
    Francesco Guido Mangano
    Oleg Admakin
    Matteo Bonacina
    Henriette Lerner
    Vygandas Rutkunas
    Carlo Mangano
    BMC Oral Health, 20
  • [6] Investigation of the Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners in Mandibular Full-Arch Digital Implant Impression: A Comparative In Vitro Study
    Di Fiore, Adolfo
    Graiff, Lorenzo
    Savio, Gianpaolo
    Granata, Stefano
    Basilicata, Michele
    Bollero, Patrizio
    Meneghello, Roberto
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 19 (08)
  • [7] Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: in vitro trueness evaluation
    Mangano, Francesco Guido
    Bonacina, Matteo
    Mandelli, Federico
    Marchiori, Fabio
    BMC RESEARCH NOTES, 2020, 13 (01)
  • [8] Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study
    Ma, Bowen
    Yue, Xinxin
    Sun, Yujie
    Peng, Lingyan
    Geng, Wei
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2021, 21 (01)
  • [9] Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study
    Bowen Ma
    Xinxin Yue
    Yujie Sun
    Lingyan Peng
    Wei Geng
    BMC Oral Health, 21
  • [10] Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: in vitro trueness evaluation
    Francesco Guido Mangano
    Matteo Bonacina
    Federico Mandelli
    Fabio Marchiori
    BMC Research Notes, 13