Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth.

BACKGROUND There is a scarce knowledge on the accuracy of intraoral digital impression systems for dental implants. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system considering clinical parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS A master model with six implants (27, 25, 22, 12, 15, 17) was fitted with polyether ether ketone scan bodies. Implant no. 25 was placed with 30° mesial angulation in relation to the vertical plane (y axis), and implant no. 15 was positioned with 30° distal angulation. Implant no. 22 was placed 2 mm and no. 12, 4 mm below the gingiva. Experienced (n = 2) and inexperienced operators (n = 2) performed scanning (Lava Chairside Oral Scanner; 3 M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) at standard and high accuracy mode. Measurements involved five distances (27-25, 27-22, 27-12, 27-15, 27-17). Measurements with high accuracy three-dimensional coordinated measuring machine (CMM) of the master model acted as the true values. The data obtained were subtracted from those of the CMM values. RESULTS Experience of the operator significantly influenced the results (p = .000). Angulation (p = .195) and depth of implant (p = .399) did not show significant deviation from the true values. The mean difference between standard and high accuracy mode was 90 μm. CONCLUSIONS With the active wavefront sampling, technology-based digital impression system training seems to be compulsory. Impressions of angulated implants may diminish the accuracy of the impression, yet the results were not significant.

[1]  Gary L Henkel.  A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. , 2007, Compendium of continuing education in dentistry.

[2]  June-Sung Shim,et al.  Accuracy of impressions for internal-connection implant prostheses with various divergent angles. , 2011, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[3]  Chang-Whe Kim,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of implant-level impression techniques for internal-connection implant prostheses in parallel and divergent models. , 2007, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  Seung-Geun Ahn,et al.  Effect of impression coping and implant angulation on the accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro study , 2010, The journal of advanced prosthodontics.

[5]  Neal Patel,et al.  Integrating three-dimensional digital technologies for comprehensive implant dentistry. , 2010, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[6]  G. Christensen.  Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. , 2009, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[7]  Matthias Karl,et al.  Bone loading caused by different types of misfits of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a three-dimensional finite element analysis based on experimental results. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  Murat Akkocaoglu,et al.  Bone strains around immediately loaded implants supporting mandibular overdentures in human cadavers. , 2007, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[9]  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 .

[10]  Werner H. Moörmann.  The evolution of the CEREC system , 2006 .

[11]  A Ender,et al.  Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. , 2009, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[12]  W Chee,et al.  Treatment planning of implants in posterior quadrants , 2006, British Dental Journal.

[13]  T Albrektsson,et al.  Current challenges in successful rehabilitation with oral implants. , 2011, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[14]  Arun K Garg.  Cadent iTero's digital system for dental impressions: the end of trays and putty? , 2008, Dental implantology update.

[15]  Chong-Hyun Han,et al.  Displacement of implant components from impressions to definitive casts. , 2006, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[16]  Daniel Edelhoff,et al.  Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing , 2012, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[17]  Anders Ortorp,et al.  The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[18]  C. Ercoli,et al.  The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. , 2008, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  A. Mehl,et al.  Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions--an in-vitro study. , 2011, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[20]  Changyong Feng,et al.  Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. , 2008, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[21]  Sang J. Lee,et al.  Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[22]  M. Wichmann,et al.  Different bone loading patterns due to fixation of three-unit and five-unit implant prostheses. , 2007, Australian dental journal.

[23]  M. Compagnoni,et al.  Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. , 2008, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[24]  Andreas Syrek,et al.  Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. , 2010, Journal of dentistry.

[25]  Bjarni E Pjetursson,et al.  A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant supported fixed dental prostheses with cantilever extensions after an observation period of at least 5 years. , 2009, Clinical oral implants research.

[26]  Luis C F Frasca,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments. , 2004, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[27]  W Wagner,et al.  Comparative histomorphometry and resonance frequency analysis of implants with moderately rough surfaces in a loaded animal model. , 2007, Clinical oral implants research.

[28]  Shinji Ono,et al.  Optical impression method to measure three-dimensional position and orientation of dental implants using an optical tracker. , 2013, Clinical oral implants research.

[29]  Angelo A Caputo,et al.  Effect of splinting and interproximal contact tightness on load transfer by implant restorations. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[30]  Göran Bergkvist,et al.  Implant-supported fixed prostheses in the edentulous maxilla. A 2-year clinical and radiological follow-up of treatment with non-submerged ITI implants. , 2004, Clinical oral implants research.

[31]  Karl Lyons,et al.  Assessing the fit of implant fixed prostheses: a critical review. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[32]  T D Taylor,et al.  Implant prosthodontics: current perspective and future directions. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[33]  German O Gallucci,et al.  Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[34]  Yijin Ren,et al.  Application of Intra-Oral Dental Scanners in the Digital Workflow of Implantology , 2012, PloS one.

[35]  S Quaas,et al.  Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. , 2005, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[36]  Marco Del Corso,et al.  Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[37]  Torsten Jemt,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. , 2012, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.