Digital vs Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws.
3D Printing
complete-arch implant impressions
dental implants
digital dentistry
digital implant impression
digital implant scans
digital workflow
full-arch
full-arch implant impressions
implant rehabilitation
Journal
Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists
ISSN: 1532-849X
Titre abrégé: J Prosthodont
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9301275
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2023
Apr 2023
Historique:
received:
23
01
2022
accepted:
02
05
2022
medline:
10
4
2023
pubmed:
8
5
2022
entrez:
7
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a paucity of comparative clinical studies assessing the accuracy of full-arch digital scans versus conventional implant impressions. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the three-dimensional (3D) deviations between full-arch digital scans and conventional implant impressions for edentulous maxillae and mandibles. Twenty-seven patients (36 edentulous jaws) were treated with one-piece, screw-retained implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs). Twenty-one jaws were maxillary, and 15 were mandibular. Full-arch conventional impressions and intraoral digital scans with scan bodies and an intraoral scanner had been taken during the impression phase. Following verification of the conventional stone casts, the casts were digitized. The generated standard tessellation language (STL) files from both impression techniques were merged and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary aim was to evaluate the accuracy between conventional and digital full-arch scans, while the effect of the edentulous jaw in 3D accuracy was the secondary aim. The cumulative 3D (mean ± SD) deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full-arch digital scans and digitized stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 88 ±24 μm. In the maxillary group, the mean ± SD 3D deviation was 85 ±25 μm, compared to 92 ±23 μm for the mandibular group (p = 0.444). The 3D implant deviations found between the full-arch digital and conventional impressions lie within the clinically acceptable threshold. No statistically significant difference was identified between maxillary and mandibular jaws in terms of 3D deviations.
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
325-330Informations de copyright
© 2022 by the American College of Prosthodontists.
Références
Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, et al: Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 2020;29:660-678
Siqueira R, Galli M, Chen Z, et al: Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2021;25:6517-6531
Fang JH, An X, Jeong SM, et al: Digital intraoral scanning technique for edentulous jaws. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:733-735
Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A et al: Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020;29:281-86
Papaspyridakos P, Chen YW, Gonzalez-Gusmao I, et al: Complete digital workflow in prosthesis prototype fabrication for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: a technique. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:189-192
Papaspyridakos P, Chochlidakis K, Kang K, et al: Digital workflow for implant rehabilitation with double full-arch monolithic zirconia prostheses. J Prosthodont 2020;29:460-465
Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Akulauskas M, et al: In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2021;32:1444-1454
Ahmed WM, Verhaeghe TV, McCullagh APG: Maxillary complete-arch implant-supported restoration: a digital scanning and maxillomandibular relationship workflow. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125:216-220
Papaspyridakos P, De Souza A, Bathija A, et al: Complete digital workflow for mandibular full-arch implant rehabilitation in 3 appointments. J Prosthodont 2021;30:548-552
Papaspyridakos P, Chen YW, Alshawaf B, et al: Digital workflow: in vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:589-593
Ercoli C, Geminiani A, Feng C, et al: The influence of verification jig on framework fit for nonsegmented fixed implant-supported complete denture. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14(Suppl 1):e188-e195
Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, et al: Implant framework misfit: a systematic review on assessment methods and clinical complications. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2021;23:244-258
Abduo J, Judge RB: Implications of implant framework misfit: a systematic review of biomechanical sequelae. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:608-621
Chow SC, Shao J, Wang H, et al: Sample Size Calculations in Clinical Research (ed 3). Boca Raton, FL, Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, 2017
Moore DS, McCabe GP: Introduction to the Practice of Statistics (ed 3). New York, W.H. Freeman, 1999
Mascha EJ, Vetter TR: Significance, errors, power, and sample size: the blocking and tackling of statistics. Anesth Analg 2018;126:691-698
Killip S, Mahfoud Z, Pearce K: What is an intracluster correlation coefficient? Crucial concepts for primary care researchers. Ann Fam Med 2004;2:204-208
Tan MY, Yee SHX, Wong KM, et al: Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2019;34:366-380
Jemt T, Book K: Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:620-625
Jemt T: In vivo measurements of precision of fit involving implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11:151-158
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Kim YJ, et al: Technical complications and prosthesis survival rates with implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses: a retrospective study with 1- to 12-year follow-up. J Prosthodont 2020;29:3-11
Chochlidakis K, Einarsdottir E, Tsigarida A, et al: Survival rates and prosthetic complications of implant fixed complete dental prostheses: an up to 5-year retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:539-546
Tischler M, Patch C, Bidra AS: Rehabilitation of edentulous jaws with zirconia complete-arch fixed implant-supported prostheses: an up to 4-year retrospective clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:204-209
Rojas Vizcaya F: Retrospective 2- to 7-year follow-up study of 20 double full-arch implant-supported monolithic zirconia fixed prostheses: measurements and recommendations for optimal design. J Prosthodont 2018;27:501-508
Papaspyridakos P, Bordin TB, Natto ZS, et al: Complications and survival rates of 55 metal-ceramic implant-supported fixed complete-arch prostheses: a cohort study with mean 5-year follow-up. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:441-449
Papaspyridakos P, AlFulaij F, Bokhary A, et al: Complete digital workflow for prosthesis prototype fabrication with double digital scanning: accuracy of fit assessment. J Prosthodont 2022; https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13492