nach oben

Clinical Oral Investigations

Erschienen in:

27.05.2019 | Original Article

Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison

verfasst von: Christine Keul, Jan-Frederik Güth

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

Comparison of full-arch digital impressions to conventional impressions in vitro and in vivo.

Materials and methods

A straight metal bar was fixed between the second upper molars as a reference structure in the mouth of a voluntary patient and a corresponding polymer model. The following digitalization methods were applied: (1) the maxilla was digitized in vivo 12 times with the iTero Element (P-SCAN); (2) the maxilla was captured in vivo 12 times by conventional impression and the impression was digitized by a desktop scanner (P-IMP); (3) the impressions were poured and the 12 referring gypsum master-casts were scanned with the same desktop scanner (P-CAST); (4) the polymer model was digitized in vitro 12 times with the iTero Element (M-SCAN); (5) the polymer model was captured in vitro 12 times by conventional impression and the impression was digitized by a desktop scanner (M-IMP); (6) the impressions were poured and the 12 referring gypsum master-casts were scanned with the same desktop scanner (M-CAST). Datasets were exported and metrically analyzed (Geomagic Control X) to determine three-dimensional length aberration and angular distortion versus the reference structure. Mann–Whitney U test was implemented to detect differences (p < 0.05).

Results

For multiple accuracy parameters, P-SCAN and M-SCAN showed similar or superior results compared to the other digitalization methods. The following length deviations were found: M-SCAN (− 55 to 80 μm), M-IMP (110 to 329 μm), M-CAST (88 to 178 μm), P-SCAN (− 67 to 76 μm), P-IMP (125–320 μm), and P-CAST (92–285 μm).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, the iTero-scan seems to be a valid alternative to conventional impressions for full arches.

Clinical relevance

Intraoral scanners are more and more used in daily routine; however, little is known about their accuracy when it comes to full-arch scans. Under optimum conditions, the direct digitalization using the iTero Element intraoral scanning device results in the same and for single parameters (arch width and arch distortion) even in higher accuracy than the indirect digitalization of the impression or the gypsum cast using a desktop scanner.

Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2016) A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent 55:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002 CrossRefPubMed

Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Prandtner O, Trimpl J, Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF (2017) CAD/CAM splints for the functional and esthetic evaluation of newly defined occlusal dimensions. Quintessence Int 48(3):181–191. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a37641 CrossRefPubMed

Edelhoff D, Beuer F, Schweiger J, Brix O, Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF (2012) CAD/CAM-generated high-density polymer restorations for the pretreatment of complex cases: a case report. Quintessence Int 43(6):457–467PubMed

Güth JF, Almeida e Silva JSA, Beuer FF, Edelhoff D (2012) Enhancing the predictability of complex rehabilitation with a removable CAD/CAM-fabricated long-term provisional prosthesis: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 107(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)00171-5 CrossRefPubMed

Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF (2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization—a laboratory study. Dent Mater 30(4):400–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.006 CrossRefPubMed

Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21PubMed

Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2013) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17(4):1201–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0 CrossRefPubMed

Guth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Keul C (2016) A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 20(7):1487–1494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1626-x CrossRefPubMed

Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12(1):11–28PubMed

10.

Nedelcu RG, Persson AS (2014) Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 112(6):1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2015) Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 19(8):2027–2034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G (2015) 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 17(Suppl 1):e54–e64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12124 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Gimenez B, Pradies G, Martinez-Rus F, Ozcan M (2015) Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30(1):56–64. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3689 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P (2017) Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(11):1360–1367. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12994 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ciocca L, Meneghello R, Monaco C, Savio G, Scheda L, Gatto MR, Baldissara P (2018) In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 13:1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1719-5 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC (2016) Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 115(6):755–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007 CrossRefPubMed

17.

Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W (2014) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18(6):1687–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ender A, Mehl A (2015) In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 46(1):9–17. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a32244 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109(2):121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A (2017) Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop 78(6):466–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0103-3 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC (2013) Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144(3):471–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017 CrossRef

22.

Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A (2016) In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 115(3):313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE (2014) Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146(5):673–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023 CrossRef

24.

Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 1: general principles and definitions (ISO 5725-1:1994)

25.

Choi AH, Conway RC, Taraschi V, Ben-Nissan B (2015) Biomechanics and functional distortion of the human mandible. J Investig Clin Dent 6(4):241–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12112 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Sahin S, Cehreli MC (2001) The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 10(2):85–92CrossRef

27.

van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y (2012) Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 7(8):e43312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043312 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Wesemann C, Muallah J, Mah J, Bumann A (2017) Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: a comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. Quintessence Int 48(1):41–50. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a37130 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Muallah J, Wesemann C, Nowak R, Robben J, Mah J, Pospiech P, Bumann A (2017) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral and extraoral scanners: an in vitro study using a new method of evaluation. Int J Comput Dent 20(2):151–164PubMed

30.

Nowak R, Wesemann C, Robben J, Muallah J, Bumann A (2017) An in-vitro study comparing the accuracy of full-arch casts digitized with desktop scanners. Quintessence Int 20:667–676. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a38676 CrossRef

31.

Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G (2009) Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 25(7):929–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Matta RE, Adler W, Wichmann M, Heckmann SM (2017) Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 117(4):507–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.026 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Rehmann P, Sichwardt V, Wostmann B (2017) Intraoral scanning systems: need for maintenance. Int J Prosthodont 30(1):27–29. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4976 CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison
verfasst von: Christine Keul
Jan-Frederik Güth
Publikationsdatum: 27.05.2019
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

11.04.2024 | Endokarditis | Nachrichten

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

Die Hybrid-DRG kann jetzt abgerechnet werden – zunächst mit Pseudoziffern

Newsletter

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Effect of Er:YAG laser etching on topography, microstructure, compressive strength, and bond strength of a universal adhesive to calcium silicate cements

Lithium disilicate posterior overlays: clinical and biomechanical features

Synergistic potential of 1α,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 and calcium–aluminate–chitosan scaffolds with dental pulp cells

Selective, stepwise, or nonselective removal of carious tissue: which technique offers lower risk for the treatment of dental caries in permanent teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis

How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro

Analysis of the association of TNF-α, IL-1A, and IL-1B polymorphisms with peri-implantitis in a Chinese non-smoking population

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Invasive Zahnbehandlung: Wann eine Antibiotikaprophylaxe vor infektiöser Endokarditis schützt

Zell-Organisatoren unter Druck: Mechanismen des embryonalen Zahnwachstums aufgedeckt

Die Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde umbenannt

Die Hybrid-DRG kann jetzt abgerechnet werden – zunächst mit Pseudoziffern

Newsletter