Digital vs. conventional full‐arch implant impressions: a comparative study

PURPOSE To test whether or not digital full-arch implant impressions with two different intra-oral scanners (CEREC Omnicam and True Definition) have the same accuracy as conventional ones. The hypothesis was that the splinted open-tray impressions would be more accurate than digital full-arch impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS A stone master cast representing an edentulous mandible using five internal connection implant analogs (Straumann Bone Level RC, Basel, Switzerland) was fabricated. The three median implants were parallel to each other, the far left implant had 10°, and the far right had 15° distal angulation. A splinted open-tray technique was used for the conventional polyether impressions (n = 10) for Group 1. Digital impressions (n = 10) were taken with two intra-oral optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam and 3M True Definition) after connecting polymer scan bodies to the master cast for groups 2 and 3. Master cast and conventional impression test casts were digitized with a high-resolution reference scanner (Activity 880 scanner; Smart Optics, Bochum, Germany) to obtain digital files. Standard tessellation language (STL) datasets from the three test groups of digital and conventional impressions were superimposed with the STL dataset from the master cast to assess the 3D deviations. Deviations were recorded as root-mean-square error. To compare the master cast with conventional and digital impressions at the implant level, Welch's F-test was used together with Games-Howell post hoc test. RESULTS Group I had a mean value of 167.93 μm (SD 50.37); Group II (Omnicam) had a mean value of 46.41 μm (SD 7.34); Group III (True Definition) had a mean value of 19.32 μm (SD 2.77). Welch's F-test was used together with the Games-Howell test for post hoc comparisons. Welch's F-test showed a significant difference between the groups (P < 0.001). The Games-Howell test showed statistically significant 3D deviations for all three groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Full-arch digital implant impressions using True Definition scanner and Omnicam were significantly more accurate than the conventional impressions with the splinted open-tray technique. Additionally, the digital impressions with the True Definition scanner had significantly less 3D deviations when compared with the Omnicam.

[1]  T. Attin,et al.  In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[2]  Francisco Martínez-Rus,et al.  Accuracy of a Digital Impression System Based on Active Triangulation Technology With Blue Light for Implants: Effect of Clinically Relevant Parameters , 2015, Implant dentistry.

[3]  B. Hassan,et al.  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 , 2017, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[4]  H. De Bruyn,et al.  Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study , 2017, Clinical oral implants research.

[5]  Tim Joda,et al.  Clinical Fitting and Adjustment Time for Implant-Supported Crowns Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows. , 2016, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[6]  Tamer Abdelazim Mellik,et al.  Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. , 2015, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[7]  Chung‐Han Ho,et al.  Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[8]  Enrico Gherlone,et al.  Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for "All-on-Four" Restorations. , 2016, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  Panos Papaspyridakos,et al.  Computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing zirconia implant fixed complete prostheses: clinical results and technical complications up to 4 years of function. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  Wei-Shao Lin,et al.  Use of digital data acquisition and CAD/CAM technology for the fabrication of a fixed complete dental prosthesis on dental implants. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[11]  M. Özcan,et al.  Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[12]  I. Naert,et al.  Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[13]  U. Brägger,et al.  Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[14]  Konstantinos Chochlidakis,et al.  Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2016, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[15]  G. Benic,et al.  Consensus statements and clinical recommendations for implant loading protocols. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[16]  Wael Att,et al.  Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners. , 2016, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[17]  Odont Dr Torsten Jemt Lds,et al.  In Vitro Measurements of Precision of Fit of Implant-Supported Frameworks. A Comparison between “Virtual” and “Physical” Assessments of Fit Using Two Different Techniques of Measurements , 2011 .

[18]  Sang J. Lee,et al.  Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. , 2015, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  A. Mehl,et al.  In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. , 2015, Quintessence international.

[20]  Panos Papaspyridakos,et al.  Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. , 2014, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  Panos Papaspyridakos,et al.  Complete-mouth implant rehabilitation with modified monolithic zirconia implant-supported fixed dental prostheses and an immediate-loading protocol: a clinical report. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[22]  Daniel Edelhoff,et al.  Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study , 2011, Clinical Oral Investigations.