IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i8p1599-d160467.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study

Author

Listed:
  • Paulo Ribeiro

    (Porto Dental Institute, 4150-518 Oporto, Portugal)

  • Mariano Herrero-Climent

    (Porto Dental Institute, 4150-518 Oporto, Portugal)

  • Carmen Díaz-Castro

    (Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain)

  • José Vicente Ríos-Santos

    (Department of Periodontics and Dental Implants, University of Seville, 41009 Seville, Spain)

  • Roberto Padrós

    (Barcelona Dental Institute, 08034 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Javier Gil Mur

    (Technological Health Research Center, Biomaterials of the Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry, International University of Cataluña, 08034 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Carlos Falcão

    (Porto Dental Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Fernando Pessoa University, 4150-518 Oporto, Portugal)

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental impressions with the accuracy of impressions obtained via conventional techniques. Methods: Two different master models were created, one with parallel implants (model 1) and the other with non-parallel implants (model 2). These reference master models included 4 Klockner KL RP implants (Klockner Implant System SA, Barcelona, Spain), which were juxta-placed and equidistant in the intermentoneal region. In model 1 the implants were placed parallel to each other, whereas in model 2 the implants were placed such that there was a divergence angle of 15° between the more distal implants, and a convergence angle of 15° between the two central implants. A total of four types of impressions were obtained from model 1 (four groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression groups for dragging copings, without splinting; open tray impressions for ferrules; and impressions obtained using the 3M TM True Definition Scanner system. For model 2 three groups were created (three groups, n = 10 each), including closed tray impressions with replacement abutments; open tray impression for dragging copings, without splinting; and impressions obtained using the 3M TM True Definition Scanner system. The master models and the models obtained using conventional methods were digitalized in order to compare them via an extraoral high-resolution scanner (Imetric IScan D104i, Porretruy, Switzerland). The STL (Stereo Lithography (format for transferring 3 dimensional shape information)) digital values were loaded into reverse-engineering software and superimposed with their respective STL master models in order to evaluate deviations in three dimensions. We then analyzed the squares of the deviations in the three axes and evaluated the median and the sum of the deviation square. Statistical analysis was performed using the IBM Corp. Released 2016. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. The normality of the distributions was analyzed according to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The median comparison was performed using the differences between the medians, analyzed using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: For model 1, the deviations of the digital impressions were smaller than those associated with the conventional techniques. The sum value in group D was 1,068,292, which was significantly lower than those of groups A, B, and C, which were shown to be 2,114,342, 2,165,491, and 1,265,918, respectively. This improvement was not observed when using model 2, however, where the conventional techniques yielded similar results. Group F simultaneously presented the lowest total square sum of the three deviations (1,257,835), indicating a significantly higher accuracy for this group in model 2, while the sum values were 1,660,975 and 1,489,328 for groups E and G, respectively. Conclusion: Digital impressions of full-arch models were able to achieve the accuracy of conventional impressions in an in vitro model. Nevertheless, further in vivo studies are needed to validate these in vitro results.

Suggested Citation

  • Paulo Ribeiro & Mariano Herrero-Climent & Carmen Díaz-Castro & José Vicente Ríos-Santos & Roberto Padrós & Javier Gil Mur & Carlos Falcão, 2018. "Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions—An In Vitro Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:8:p:1599-:d:160467
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1599/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/8/1599/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz & Victoria Schubert & Alexander Schmidt & Bernd Wöstmann & Sabine Ruf & Katharina Klaus, 2020. "Digital versus Conventional Impression Taking Focusing on Interdental Areas: A Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(13), pages 1-12, June.
    2. Simone Marques & Paulo Ribeiro & Carlos Falcão & Bernardo Ferreira Lemos & Blanca Ríos-Carrasco & José Vicente Ríos-Santos & Mariano Herrero-Climent, 2021. "Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-20, January.
    3. María Isabel Albanchez-González & Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann & Jesús Peláez-Rico & Carlos López-Suárez & Verónica Rodríguez-Alonso & María Jesús Suárez-García, 2022. "Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-18, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:8:p:1599-:d:160467. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.