Clinical Oral Implants Research
Clinical Oral Implants Research
5 years ago

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

Panos Papaspyridakos, Sarah Amin, Yukio Kudara, Matthew Finkelman, Hans Peter Weber, Khaled El Rafie
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.

Publisher URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/resolve/doi

DOI: 10.1111/clr.12994

You might also like
Discover & Discuss Important Research

Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.

  • Download from Google Play
  • Download from App Store
  • Download from AppInChina

Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.