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
  • [31] Do digital impressions have a greater accuracy for full-arch implant-supported reconstructions compared to conventional impressions? An in vitro study
    Shaikh, Mohsin
    Lakha, Tabrez
    Kheur, Supriya
    Qamri, Batul
    Kheur, Mohit
    [J]. THE JOURNAL OF INDIAN PROSTHODONTIC SOCIETY, 2022, 22 (04) : 398 - 404
  • [32] Effect of novel prefabricated auxiliary devices attaching to scan bodies on the accuracy of intraoral scanning of complete-arch with multiple implants: An in-vitro study
    Wu, Hio Kuan
    Wang, Jing
    Chen, Guanhui
    Huang, Xiaoqiong
    Deng, Feilong
    Li, Yiming
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 138
  • [33] Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis
    Ashraf, Yasmine
    Abo El Fadl, Ahmad
    Hamdy, Amina
    Ebeid, Kamal
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ESTHETIC AND RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY, 2023, 35 (08) : 1257 - 1263
  • [34] The cumulative effect of error in the digital workflow for complete-arch implant-supported frameworks: An in vitro study
    Pan, Yu
    Tsoi, James Kit Hon
    Lam, Walter Y. H.
    Zhao, Ke
    Pow, Edmond H. N.
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2022, 33 (09) : 886 - 899
  • [35] Comparative Analysis of Intraoral Scanner Accuracy in a Six-Implant Complete-Arch Model: An In Vitro Study
    Ferrini, Francesco
    Mazzoleni, Federica
    Barbini, Matteo
    Coppo, Carlotta
    Di Domenico, Giovanna Laura
    Gherlone, Enrico Felice
    [J]. PROSTHESIS, 2024, 6 (02): : 401 - 412
  • [36] Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses: An In Vitro Study
    Drancourt, Noemie
    Auduc, Chantal
    Mouget, Aymeric
    Mouminoux, Jean
    Auroy, Pascal
    Veyrune, Jean-Luc
    El Osta, Nada
    Nicolas, Emmanuel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PERSONALIZED MEDICINE, 2023, 13 (05):
  • [37] Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans
    Gomez-Polo, Miguel
    Sallorenzo, Alessandro
    Ortega, Rocio
    Gomez-Polo, Cristina
    Barmak, Abdul B.
    Att, Wael
    Revilla-Leon, Marta
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY, 2024, 131 (01): : 119 - 127
  • [38] A 30-Year Follow-Up of a Patient with Mandibular Complete-Arch Fixed Implant-Supported Prosthesis on 4 Implants: A Clinical Report
    Balshi, Thomas J.
    Wolfinger, Glenn J.
    Balshi, Stephen F.
    Bidra, Avinash S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS-IMPLANT ESTHETIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE DENTISTRY, 2019, 28 (02): : 97 - 102
  • [39] Merging intraoral scans and CBCT: a novel technique for improving the accuracy of 3D digital models for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses
    Gomez-Polo, Miguel
    Ballesteros, Juan
    Perales-Padilla, Pedro
    Perales-Pulido, Pedro
    Revilla-Leon, Marta
    Ortega, Rocio
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERIZED DENTISTRY, 2021, 24 (02) : 117 - 123
  • [40] Effect of scan powder and scanning technology on measured deviations of complete-arch implant supported frameworks digitized with industrial and intraoral scanners
    Donmez, Mustafa Borga
    Cakmak, Gulce
    Dede, Dogu Omur
    Kucukekenci, Ahmet Serkan
    Lu, Wei-En
    Schumacher, Fernanda Lang
    Revilla-Leon, Marta
    Yilmaz, Burak
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2023, 138