Effect of soft tissue thickness on accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques.
Accuracy of impression
Conventional impression
Digital impression
Implant depth
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Oct 2024
30 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
27
05
2024
accepted:
09
10
2024
medline:
31
10
2024
pubmed:
31
10
2024
entrez:
31
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Placing implants deep sub-gingivally may affect the accuracy of implant impression techniques and the fit of final restoration. The aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effect of soft tissue thickness on accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques. Four parallel implant analogues (A, B, C, D) placed in each of two epoxy resin models representing edentulous mandible covered by flexible polyurethane material with two different thickness two mm and four mm. A total of sixty impressions performed, thirty impressions for each model divided into four groups (n = 15 per group) GI (C2mm) open tray impression with two mm implant depth, GII (C4mm) open tray impression with four mm implant depth, GIII (D2mm) digital impression with two mm implant depth, GIV (D 4 mm) digital impression with four mm implant depth. Impressions from open tray technique were poured to get stone casts while impressions from digital scanning technique were printed as three-dimensional printed casts. The six inter-implant distances between analogues were measured using Co-ordinate measuring machine, deviations compared to reference models were calculated. Data was collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using One-way ANOVA test to detect significances between groups. For conventional impressions there was significant difference between C2mm/C4mm (P < 0.001) regarding interimplant distance, while in digital impressions there was no significant difference between D2mm/D4mm AB(p = 0.110), BC(p = 0.066), CD(p = 0.710), AD(p = 0.084), AC(p = 0.067) and BD(p = 0.072). There was significant difference between conventional and digital impression techniques C2mm/D2mm, C4mm/D4mm (P < 0.001). Within the limitations of this in-vitro study digital impressions provide more accurate outcomes with implants placed deeper subgingivally than conventional impressions. Retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Placing implants deep sub-gingivally may affect the accuracy of implant impression techniques and the fit of final restoration.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effect of soft tissue thickness on accuracy of conventional and digital implant impression techniques.
METHODS
METHODS
Four parallel implant analogues (A, B, C, D) placed in each of two epoxy resin models representing edentulous mandible covered by flexible polyurethane material with two different thickness two mm and four mm. A total of sixty impressions performed, thirty impressions for each model divided into four groups (n = 15 per group) GI (C2mm) open tray impression with two mm implant depth, GII (C4mm) open tray impression with four mm implant depth, GIII (D2mm) digital impression with two mm implant depth, GIV (D 4 mm) digital impression with four mm implant depth. Impressions from open tray technique were poured to get stone casts while impressions from digital scanning technique were printed as three-dimensional printed casts. The six inter-implant distances between analogues were measured using Co-ordinate measuring machine, deviations compared to reference models were calculated. Data was collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using One-way ANOVA test to detect significances between groups.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For conventional impressions there was significant difference between C2mm/C4mm (P < 0.001) regarding interimplant distance, while in digital impressions there was no significant difference between D2mm/D4mm AB(p = 0.110), BC(p = 0.066), CD(p = 0.710), AD(p = 0.084), AC(p = 0.067) and BD(p = 0.072). There was significant difference between conventional and digital impression techniques C2mm/D2mm, C4mm/D4mm (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this in-vitro study digital impressions provide more accurate outcomes with implants placed deeper subgingivally than conventional impressions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39478512
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-05037-4
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-05037-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Implants
0
Dental Impression Materials
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1318Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Arikan H, Muhtarogullari M, Uzel SM, Guncu MB, Aktas G, Marshall LS, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device. J Dent Sci. 2023;808–13.
Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDP s) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:22–38.
pubmed: 23062125
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02546.x
Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive Fit in Screw retained multi-unit Implant Prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2014;16–23.
Abduo J, Bennani V, Waddell N, Lyons K, Swain M. Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(3):506–15.
pubmed: 20556249
Eliasson A, Örtorp A. The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012;14:e30–8.
pubmed: 21453396
doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00344.x
Hale A, Mehmet M, Sema M, Mustafa B, Lindsay S. Accuracy of digital impressions. For implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device. J Dent Sci.2023(18): 808–13.
Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(2):107–13.
pubmed: 18262011
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60026-8
Richi MW, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O. Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants. Head Face Med. 2020;(16) 9.
Al Quran FA, Rashdan BA, Abu Zomar AA, Weiner S. Passive fit and accuracy of three dental implant impression techniques. Quintessence Int. 2012;43(2):119–25.
pubmed: 22257873
Lee CK, Karl M, Kelly JR. Evaluation of test protocol variables for dental implant fatigue research. Dent Mater. 2009;25(11):1419–25.
pubmed: 19646746
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.003
Taduri T, Mathur S, Upadhyay S, Patel K, Shah M. Effect of Implant Angulation and depth on the Accuracy of casts using the Open Tray Splinted impression technique. Oral Implantol. 2021;47(6):447–54.
doi: 10.1563/aaid-joi-D-19-00246
Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010;12:e63–76.
pubmed: 19438937
doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00167.x
Hazboun GBA, Masri R, Romberg E, Kempler J, Driscoll CF. Effect of implant angulation and impression technique on impressions of NobelActive implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(5):425–31.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.10.009
Gehrke P, Rashidpour M, Sader R, et al. A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies. Int J Implant Dent. 2024;10:20.
pubmed: 38691258
pmcid: 11063012
doi: 10.1186/s40729-024-00543-0
Stimmelmayr M, Güth J-F, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(3):851–6.
pubmed: 21647591
doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5
Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters. Implant Dent. 2015;24(5):498–504.
pubmed: 26057777
doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000283
Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Özcan M, Pradíes G. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(8):650–5.
pubmed: 26934046
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12457
Choi J-H, Lim Y-J, Kim C-W. Evaluation of the accuracy of implant-level impression techniques for internal-connection implant prostheses in parallel and divergent models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(5):761–8.
pubmed: 17974110
Daoudi MF, Setchell DJ, Searson LJ. An evaluation of three implant level impression techniques for single tooth implant. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2004;12(1):9–14.
pubmed: 15058176
Lee Y-J, Heo S-J, Koak J-Y, Kim S-K. Accuracy of different impression techniques for internal-connection implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(5):823–30.
pubmed: 19865622
Bartlett DW, Greenwood R, Howe L. The suitability of head-of-implant and conventional abutment impression techniques for implant-retained three unit bridges: an in vitro study. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2002;10(4):163–6.
pubmed: 12526273
Assuncao WG, Gennari Filho H, Zaniquelli O. Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent. 2004;13(4):358–66.
pubmed: 15591998
doi: 10.1097/01.id.0000144509.58901.f7
Akca K, Çehreli MC. Accuracy of 2 impression techniques for ITI implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(4):517–23.
pubmed: 15346748
Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler J, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):285–91.
pubmed: 18922257
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5
Ahumada-DeGirolamo D, Azocar A, Delpiano-Mesina C, Maldonado-Cortés P, Muñoz MA, Luque-Martínez I, Bravo-Gallardo F. Splinting or non-splinting of fixed prostheses on adjacent implants: a critical review. J Prosth Res. 2023;2:206–14.
doi: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_22_00220
AL-Juboori MJ, AL-Attas MA, Minichetti J, Akhikar J. (2024). The Use of Splinted Versus Nonsplinted Prosthetic Design in Dental Implants: A Literature Review. J.Oral Implantology.2024; (1): 50–64.
Burawi G, Houston F, Byrne D, Claffey N. A comparison of the dimensional accuracy of the splinted and unsplinted impression techniques for the bone-lock implant system. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;77(1):68–75.
pubmed: 9029468
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70209-9
Mostafa TMN, Elgendy MNM, Kashef NA, Halim MM. Evaluation of the precision of three implant transfer impression techniques using two elastomeric impression materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2010;23(6):525–8.
pubmed: 21209987
Vojdani M, Torabi K, Ansarifard E. Accuracy of different impression materials in parallel and nonparallel implants. J Dent Res. 2015;12(4):315.
doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.161429
Vigolo P, Fonzi F, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. An evaluation of impression techniques for multiple internal connection implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2004;92(5):470–6.
pubmed: 15523336
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.08.015
Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. In vitro comparison of master cast accuracy for single-tooth implant replacement. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83(5):562–6.
pubmed: 10793389
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(00)70015-1
Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89(2):186–92.
pubmed: 12616240
doi: 10.1067/mpr.2003.15
Moreira AH, Rodrigues NF, Pinho AC, Fonseca JC, Vilaça JL. Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: a systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:e751–64.
pubmed: 25828851
doi: 10.1111/cid.12310
Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. A comparison of implant impression precision: different materials and techniques. J Clin Experimental Dentistry. 2018;2018(2):e151.
Wassell R, Barker D, Walls A. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: impression materials and technique. Br Dent J. 2002;192(12):679–90.
pubmed: 12125794
doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4801456
Nissan J, Laufer B-Z, Brosh T, Assif D, Maurice T. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83(2):161-5.
Palantza E, Sykaras N, Zoidis P. Kourtis S. In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2024;1-20.
Martínez-Rus F, García C, Santamaría A, Özcan M, Pradíes G. Accuracy of definitive casts using 4 implant-level impression techniques in a scenario of multi-implant system with different implant angulations and subgingival alignment levels. Implant Dent. 2013;22(3):268–76.
pubmed: 23615660
doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182920dc5
Geramipanah F, Sahebi M, Davari M, Hajimahmoudi M, Rakhshan V. Effects of impression levels and trays on the accuracy of impressions taken from angulated implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(9):1098–105.
pubmed: 24934081
doi: 10.1111/clr.12410
Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, Zechner W, Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):128–36.
pubmed: 31255546
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001
Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, Van Der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):186–94.
pubmed: 24210732
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010
Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization using Intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(3):277–83.
pubmed: 27148990
doi: 10.11607/ijp.4417
Keul C, Güth J-F. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):735–45.
pubmed: 31134345
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2
Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):1–11.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013;144(8):914–20.
pubmed: 23904578
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209
Su T-s, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: an in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2015;59(4):236–42.
pubmed: 26211702
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2015.06.002
Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(4):853–62.
pubmed: 25032765
doi: 10.11607/jomi.3343
Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(4):309–14.
pubmed: 31802574
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13131
Hoist S, Blatz MB, Bergler M, Goellner M, Wichmann M. Influence of impression material and time on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant impressions. Quintessence Int. 2007;38(1):67–73.
Tsagkalidis G, Tortopidis D, Mpikos P, Kaisarlis G, Koidis P. Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(4):517–23.
pubmed: 26213265
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.05.005
Linkevicius T, Svediene O, Vindasiute E, Puisys A, Linkeviciene L. The influence of implant placement depth and impression material on the stability of an open tray impression coping. J Prosthet Dent. 2012;108(4):238–43.
pubmed: 23031730
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(12)60169-3
Öngül D, Gökçen-Röhlig B, Şermet B, Keskin, HJAdj. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of different direct impression techniques for multiple implants. Aust Dent J. 2012;57(2):184–9.
pubmed: 22624759
doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2012.01685.x
Beyabanaki E, Shamshiri AR, Alikhasi M, Monzavi AJJP. Effect of splinting on dimensional accuracy of impressions made of implants with different subgingival alignments. J Prosthodont. 2017;26(1):48–55.
pubmed: 26436559
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12368
Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:e54–64.
pubmed: 23879869
doi: 10.1111/cid.12124
Giménez B, Pradíes G, Martínez-Rus F, Özcan M. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(1):56–64.
pubmed: 25615916
doi: 10.11607/jomi.3689
Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(4):465–72.
pubmed: 25682892
doi: 10.1111/clr.12567
Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional Versus Digital impressions for all-on-four restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(2):324–30.
pubmed: 27004280
doi: 10.11607/jomi.3900
Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:3761750.
pubmed: 29971107
doi: 10.1155/2018/3761750
Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant impressions. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(2):163–70.
pubmed: 32935894
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13264
Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1253–62.
pubmed: 28965251
doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360–7.
pubmed: 28039903
doi: 10.1111/clr.12994
Farhan F-A, Ali-Jameel-Abdul Sahib A-A. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral digital impression system and conventional impression techniques for multiple implants in the full-arch edentulous mandible. J Clin Experimental Dentistry. 2021;13(5):e487.
doi: 10.4317/jced.57926
Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen Yw, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(8):660–78.
pubmed: 32613641
doi: 10.1111/jopr.13211
Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(4):e902–8.
pubmed: 29423969
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12764
Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(7):625–33.
pubmed: 32181919
doi: 10.1111/clr.13598
Pachiou A, Zervou E, Tsirogiannis P, Sykaras N, Tortopidis D, Kourtis S. Characteristics of intraoral scan bodies and their influence on impression accuracy: a systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;1–13.
Ahn G-Z, Lee J-S. Comparison of the accuracy of implant digital impression coping. J Dent Rehabil Appl Sci. 2020;36:29–40.
doi: 10.14368/jdras.2020.36.1.29