Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study

被引:6
|
作者
Fu, Xiao-Jiao [1 ]
Liu, Min [1 ]
Liu, Bei-Lei [1 ]
Tonetti, Maurizio S. [1 ]
Shi, Jun-Yu [1 ,2 ]
Lai, Hong-Chang [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Natl Clin Res Ctr Oral Dis, Shanghai Key Lab Stomatol, Dept Implant Dent,Coll Stomatol,Sch Med,Shanghai P, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[2] Shanghai Jiao Tong Univ, Shanghai Peoples Hosp 9, Sch Med, Dept Implant Dent, 639 Zhizaoju Rd, Shanghai 200011, Peoples R China
关键词
3D images; accuracy; dental implants; dental impression technique; intraoral scan; scan body; stereophotogrammetry; MULTIPLE IMPLANTS; DENTAL PROSTHESES; IN-VITRO; REHABILITATION; PRECISION;
D O I
10.1111/clr.14183
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Objectives: The aim of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scan system (IOS) with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) compared with open tray implant impression (OI) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP). Materials and methods: Patients needing CIFDP were enrolled in this study. OI, reference standard, IOS with prefabricated aids, and SPG were performed for each patient. Distance and angle deviations between all pairs of abutment analogs, root mean square (RMS) errors between the aligned test and reference model, and chairside time were measured. The effect of inter-abutment distance, jaw (maxilla or mandible), number of implants, and arch length on deviations was analyzed. The mixed effect model was applied to analyze deviations and RMS errors. Results: Fifteen consecutive individuals (6 females and 9 males, 47-77 years old) with 22 arches (9 upper and 13 lower jaws) and 115 implants were included. There was no significant difference in distance deviation comparing SPG and IOS with OI (p >.05). IOS showed a significantly greater angle deviation and RMS errors than SPG (median 0.40 degrees vs. 0.31 degrees, 69 mu m vs. 45 mu m, p <.01). The inter-abutment distance was negatively correlated with the accuracy of SPG and IOS ( p <.05). The chairside time for IOS, SPG, and OI was 10.49 +/- 3.50, 14.71 +/- 2.86, and 20.20 +/- 3.01 min, respectively ( p <.01). Conclusions: The accuracy of SPG and IOS with prefabricated aids was comparable. IOS was the most efficient workflow.
引用
收藏
页码:830 / 840
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: An in vitro study
    Liu, Min
    Fu, Xiao-Jiao
    Lai, Hong-Chang
    Shi, Jun-Yu
    Liu, Bei-Lei
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 132 (03):
  • [2] Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: An in vitro study
    Pozzi, Alessandro
    Agliardi, Enrico
    Lio, Fabrizio
    Nagy, Katalin
    Nardi, Alessandra
    Arcuri, Lorenzo
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTIC RESEARCH, 2024, 68 (01) : 172 - 180
  • [3] Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device
    Arikan, Hale
    Muhtarogullari, Mehmet
    Uzel, Sema Merve
    Guncu, Mustafa Baris
    Aktas, Guliz
    Marshall, Lindsay Simone
    Turkyilmaz, Ilser
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 2023, 18 (02) : 808 - 813
  • [4] Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-An in vitro study
    Iturrate, Mikel
    Eguiraun, Harkaitz
    Solaberrieta, Eneko
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2019, 30 (12) : 1250 - 1258
  • [5] Effect of Scan Pattern on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions with Two Intraoral Scanners
    Li, Zhipeng
    Huang, Ruoxuan
    Wu, Xiayi
    Chen, Zetao
    Huang, Baoxin
    Chen, Zhuofan
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL IMPLANTS, 2022, 37 (04) : 731 - 739
  • [6] Obtaining reliable intraoral digital scans for an implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis: A dental technique
    Iturrate, Mikel
    Minguez, Rikardo
    Pradies, Guillermo
    Solaberrieta, Eneko
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 121 (02): : 237 - 241
  • [7] Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses
    Mizumoto, Ryan M.
    Yilmaz, Burak
    McGlumphy, Edwin A., Jr.
    Seidt, Jeremy
    Johnston, William M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2020, 123 (01): : 96 - 104
  • [8] Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with intraoral optical scanning and stereophotogrammetry: An in vivo prospective comparative study
    Pozzi, Alessandro
    Carosi, Paolo
    Gallucci, German O.
    Nagy, Katalin
    Nardi, Alessandra
    Arcuri, Lorenzo
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2023, 34 (10) : 1106 - 1117
  • [9] Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression
    Kim, Kyoung Rok
    Seo, Kyoung-young
    Kim, Sunjai
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2019, 122 (06): : 543 - 549
  • [10] Effect of prefabricated auxiliary devices and scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant digital impressions
    Wu, Hio Kuan
    Chen, Guanhui
    Wang, Jing
    Zhang, Zhengchuan
    Huang, Xiaoqiong
    Lin, Xiaoxuan
    Deng, Feilong
    Li, Yiming
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2024, 140