In Vitro Comparison of the Accuracy of Conventional Impression and Four Intraoral Scanners in Four Different Implant Impression Scenarios

被引:8
|
作者
Alpkilic, Dilara Seyma [1 ]
Deger, Sabire Isler [1 ]
机构
[1] Istanbul Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Prosthodont, Istanbul, Turkey
关键词
accuracy; conventional impression; digital impression; implant impression; intraoral scanner; trueness; PROSTHESES; PRECISION;
D O I
10.11607/jomi.9172
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and splinted open-tray conventional implant impression (SOCI) in partial and total edentulism. Materials and Methods: Four gypsum models (Model A-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, and right canine; Model B- implants at mandibular right canine, left central incisor, and left canine; Model C-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, right canine, left central incisor, and left canine; and Model D-implants at mandibular right second molar, right second premolar, right canine, left central incisor, left canine, left second premolar, and left second molar) were prepared, and four different IOSs (Aadva IOS, CS 3600, Trios 3, and Emerald) and one polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) were used. Reference models were digitized with a high-resolution industrial scanner, and data were superimposed. Root mean square (RMS) values were calculated by software and defined as deviation values after superimposition. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) test were performed to analyze the data (P < .05). Results: For Models A and B, the truest impressions were made with Aadva, followed by CS 3600, PVS, Trios 3, and Emerald, respectively, while for Model C, the truest impressions were made with CS 3600, followed by Aadva, PVS, Trios 3, and Emerald, and for Model D, the truest impressions were made with Aadva, followed by CS 3600, PVS, Emerald, and Trios 3 (P .05). There was no statistical difference between groups for precision in Models A, B, and C (P .05); however, PVS showed lower precision values than other groups in Model D (P < .05). Conclusion: In partial edentulism, IOSs are true and precise as SOCI except Emerald. However, the trueness of IOSs is not favorable in total edentulism cases. SOCI with PVS in total edentulism treated with implants is less precise than IOSs. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2022;37: 39-48. doi: 10.11607/jomi.9172
引用
收藏
页码:39 / 48
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] In vitro comparison of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners and three conventional impression methods for two neighboring implants
    Roig, Elena
    Garza, Luis Carlos
    Alvarez-Maldonado, Natalia
    Maia, Paulo
    Costa, Santiago
    Roig, Miguel
    Espona, Jose
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (02):
  • [2] 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
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 19 (08)
  • [3] Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
    Robert Nedelcu
    Pontus Olsson
    Ingela Nyström
    Andreas Thor
    [J]. BMC Oral Health, 18
  • [4] Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison
    Nedelcu, Robert
    Olsson, Pontus
    Nystrom, Ingela
    Thor, Andreas
    [J]. BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2018, 18
  • [5] Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry
    Cheng, Jing
    Zhang, Haidong
    Liu, Hailin
    Li, Junying
    Wang, Hom-Lay
    Tao, Xian
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024, 35 (05) : 560 - 572
  • [6] Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies
    Albanchez-Gonzalez, Maria Isabel
    Brinkmann, Jorge Cortes-Breton
    Pelaez-Rico, Jesus
    Lopez-Suarez, Carlos
    Rodriguez-Alonso, Veronica
    Suarez-Garcia, Maria Jesus
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 19 (04)
  • [7] Digital Evaluation of the Dimensional Accuracy of Four Different Implant Impression Techniques
    Ozcelik, T. B.
    Ozcan, I.
    Ozan, O.
    [J]. NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2018, 21 (10) : 1247 - 1253
  • [8] Comparison of Different Intraoral Scanners With Prefabricated Aid on Accuracy and Framework Passive Fit of Digital Complete-Arch Implant Impression: An In Vitro Study
    Fu, Xiao-Jiao
    Liu, Min
    Shi, Jun-Yu
    Deng, Ke
    Lai, Hong-Chang
    Gu, Wen
    Zhang, Xiao-Meng
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2024,
  • [9] COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY OF INTRAORAL SCANNING AND CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUES ON IMPLANTS: A REVIEW
    Arcuri, L.
    Lorenzi, C.
    Vanni, A.
    Bianchi, N.
    Dolci, A.
    Arcuri, C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL REGULATORS AND HOMEOSTATIC AGENTS, 2020, 34 : 89 - 97
  • [10] Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques
    Malik, Junaid
    Rodriguez, Jose
    Weisbloom, Michael
    Petridis, Haralampos
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 2018, 31 (02) : 107 - 113