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
  • [41] Chairside 3-D printed impression trays: a new approach to increase the accuracy of conventional implant impression taking? An in vitro study
    Alexander Schmidt
    Cara Berschin
    Bernd Wöstmann
    Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz
    [J]. International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 9
  • [42] Chairside 3-D printed impression trays: a new approach to increase the accuracy of conventional implant impression taking? An in vitro study
    Schmidt, Alexander
    Berschin, Cara
    Woestmann, Bernd
    Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2023, 9 (01)
  • [43] Cast accuracy obtained from different impression techniques at different implant angulations (in vitro study)
    Elshenawy, Enas A.
    Alam-Eldein, Ahmed M.
    Abd Elfatah, Fadel A.
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2018, 4
  • [44] Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study
    Alkindi, Shaikha
    Hamdoon, Zaid
    Aziz, Ahmed M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2024, 146
  • [45] Cast accuracy obtained from different impression techniques at different implant angulations (in vitro study)
    Enas A. Elshenawy
    Ahmed M. Alam-Eldein
    Fadel A. Abd Elfatah
    [J]. International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 4
  • [46] Scanning Accuracy of Bracket Features and Slot Base Angle in Different Bracket Materials by Four Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study
    Shin, Seon-Hee
    Yu, Hyung-Seog
    Cha, Jung-Yul
    Kwon, Jae-Sung
    Hwang, Chung-Ju
    [J]. MATERIALS, 2021, 14 (02) : 1 - 14
  • [47] 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
  • [48] The effect of different implant impression splinting techniques and time on the dimensional accuracy: An in vitro study
    Rutkunas, V.
    Bilius, V.
    Simonaitis, T.
    Auskalnis, L.
    Jurgilevicius, J.
    Akulauskas, M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2022, 126
  • [49] Accuracy of Interchangeable Implant Impression Systems: An In Vitro Pilot Study
    Aldosari, Abdullah M. AlFarraj
    AlBaker, Abdulaziz M.
    AlShihri, Abdulmonem A.
    AlJadeed, Majid I.
    AlBwardi, Loay A.
    Anil, Sukumaran
    [J]. IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2015, 24 (03) : 317 - 322
  • [50] 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