Comparison of Milled Full-Arch Implant-Supported Frameworks Realised with a Full Digital Workflow or from Conventional Impression: A Clinical Study.
accuracy
dental implants
digital impression
full-arch
intraoral scanner
Journal
Materials (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1996-1944
Titre abrégé: Materials (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101555929
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Jan 2023
15 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
25
11
2022
revised:
10
01
2023
accepted:
12
01
2023
entrez:
21
1
2023
pubmed:
22
1
2023
medline:
22
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of a new digital impression system, comparing it to the plaster impression technique in the realization of full-arch implant-supported metal frameworks. We took 11 scans (8 of the upper maxilla and 3 of the lower jaw) on a sample of nine patients previously rehabilitated with fixed full-arch screw-retained prostheses following the Columbus Bridge Protocol (CBP) with four to six implants (total: 51) since at least 4 months. Two impressions were taken for each dental arch: one analogic plaster impression using pick-up copings and an open tray technique and a second one using an intra-oral scanner. Two milled metal substructures were realised. The precision and passivity of the substructures were clinically analysed through the Sheffield test and endo-oral radiographs. Laboratory scans of the plaster casts obtained from an intra-oral scanner (IOS) and of the plaster casts obtained from traditional impression were compared with the intraoral scans following Hausdorff's method and an industrial digital method of optical detection to measure discrepancies. A Mann-Whitney test was performed in order to investigate average distances between surfaces after the superposition. The Sheffield test demonstrated an excellent passivity of the frameworks obtained through both the digital and the analogic method. In 81.81% of cases (n = 9) both substructures were found to have a perfect fit with excellent passivity, while in 18.18% (n = 2) of cases the substructures were found to have a very slight discrepancy. From the radiographic examination, no gaps between the frameworks and the implant heads or multiunit abutments were observed, with 100% accuracy. By superimposing digital files of scans according to Hausdorff's method, a statistically significant discrepancy ( The present study clinically demonstrates that milled implant-supported full-arch frameworks obtained through a digital scan and the herein described technique have an accuracy comparable to those obtained with traditional plaster impression.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of a new digital impression system, comparing it to the plaster impression technique in the realization of full-arch implant-supported metal frameworks.
METHODS
METHODS
We took 11 scans (8 of the upper maxilla and 3 of the lower jaw) on a sample of nine patients previously rehabilitated with fixed full-arch screw-retained prostheses following the Columbus Bridge Protocol (CBP) with four to six implants (total: 51) since at least 4 months. Two impressions were taken for each dental arch: one analogic plaster impression using pick-up copings and an open tray technique and a second one using an intra-oral scanner. Two milled metal substructures were realised. The precision and passivity of the substructures were clinically analysed through the Sheffield test and endo-oral radiographs. Laboratory scans of the plaster casts obtained from an intra-oral scanner (IOS) and of the plaster casts obtained from traditional impression were compared with the intraoral scans following Hausdorff's method and an industrial digital method of optical detection to measure discrepancies. A Mann-Whitney test was performed in order to investigate average distances between surfaces after the superposition.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The Sheffield test demonstrated an excellent passivity of the frameworks obtained through both the digital and the analogic method. In 81.81% of cases (n = 9) both substructures were found to have a perfect fit with excellent passivity, while in 18.18% (n = 2) of cases the substructures were found to have a very slight discrepancy. From the radiographic examination, no gaps between the frameworks and the implant heads or multiunit abutments were observed, with 100% accuracy. By superimposing digital files of scans according to Hausdorff's method, a statistically significant discrepancy (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The present study clinically demonstrates that milled implant-supported full-arch frameworks obtained through a digital scan and the herein described technique have an accuracy comparable to those obtained with traditional plaster impression.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36676569
pii: ma16020833
doi: 10.3390/ma16020833
pmc: PMC9861382
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Mech & Human
Références
Quintessence Int. 2014 Jan;45(1):39-51
pubmed: 24392494
Int J Prosthodont. 2019 Sep/Oct;32(5):430-432
pubmed: 31486814
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Sep;102:186-191
pubmed: 31146989
Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014 Sep-Oct;34(5):657-65
pubmed: 25171036
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2006 Sep-Oct;21(5):747-55
pubmed: 17066636
J Prosthodont. 2022 May 7;:
pubmed: 35524647
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2021 Apr;23(2):244-258
pubmed: 33331058
Int J Prosthodont. 2014 May-Jun;27(3):207-14
pubmed: 24905260
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Oct;100(4):285-91
pubmed: 18922257
Braz Oral Res. 2012 Sep-Oct;26(5):450-6
pubmed: 23018231
J Oral Implantol. 2014 Dec;40(6):758-66
pubmed: 25506666
J Appl Oral Sci. 2016 Jan-Feb;24(1):85-94
pubmed: 27008261
J Am Dent Assoc. 1988 Nov;117(6):715-20
pubmed: 3058771
Quintessence Int. 1996 Dec;27(12):821-8
pubmed: 9452675
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Apr;22(3):1253-1262
pubmed: 28965251
Materials (Basel). 2021 Jun 12;14(12):
pubmed: 34204681
J Oral Rehabil. 2017 May;44(5):392-397
pubmed: 28196278
Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2017 Jan 1;70(Pt 1):646-655
pubmed: 27770938
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015 Jan-Feb;30(1):56-64
pubmed: 25615916
Implant Dent. 2016 Apr;25(2):232-7
pubmed: 26517068
Int J Prosthodont. 2015 Nov-Dec;28(6):627-30
pubmed: 26523725
J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 Aug;144(8):914-20
pubmed: 23904578
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 Apr;27(4):465-72
pubmed: 25682892
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 May;99(5):351-60
pubmed: 18456046
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Mar;14(1):88-99
pubmed: 19686283
Int J Prosthodont. 2018 Mar/Apr;31(2):171-175
pubmed: 29518813
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Mar 07;16(5):
pubmed: 30866465
Int J Comput Dent. 2004 Jan;7(1):25-45
pubmed: 15317306
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012 Jan-Feb;27(1):29-35
pubmed: 22299075
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1997 May-Jun;12(3):371-5
pubmed: 9197102
J Adv Prosthodont. 2015 Dec;7(6):460-7
pubmed: 26816576
Quintessence Int. 1989 May;20(5):329-39
pubmed: 2756089
J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Jul;37(7):525-31
pubmed: 20236236
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019 Oct;21(5):987-994
pubmed: 31347253
Int J Prosthodont. 2015 Jan-Feb;28(1):37-9
pubmed: 25588171
Int J Prosthodont. 2020 Jun 26;34(2):250–253
pubmed: 32589002
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Oct;114(4):469-73
pubmed: 26187099
Int J Prosthodont. 2011 Jul-Aug;24(4):294-302
pubmed: 21716965
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 May;17(4):1201-8
pubmed: 22847854
J Prosthodont. 2020 Apr;29(4):281-286
pubmed: 32166793
Int J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan/Feb;32(1):27-31
pubmed: 30677109
Int J Oral Implantol (Berl). 2019;12(2):169-179
pubmed: 31090748
J Clin Exp Dent. 2018 Apr 01;10(4):e361-e366
pubmed: 29750097
J Clin Med. 2021 Dec 16;10(24):
pubmed: 34945211
Materials (Basel). 2022 Feb 20;15(4):
pubmed: 35208121