These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings.
    Author: Conejo J, Yoo TH, Atria PJ, Fraiman H, Blatz MB.
    Journal: J Prosthet Dent; 2024 Mar; 131(3):475.e1-475.e7. PubMed ID: 38182453.
    Abstract:
    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Intraoral digital scan techniques have been widely used and sufficient evidence supports this technique in partially edentulous patients. However, the evidence supporting the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for edentulous patients is limited. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the accuracy of complete arch conventional pick-up implant impressions with open and closed trays, complete arch digital implant scans with IOSs, and 3-dimensional (3D) printed casts from complete arch digital implant scans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six implants were placed in a mandibular model. Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the implants, scanned with a reference scanner, and exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format (Group Control). Splinted open-tray pick-up impressions (Group OT, n=5) and closed-tray pick-up impressions (Group CT, n=5) were made, and stone casts were fabricated. Digital scans (Group DS, n=5) were made with an IOS, and the STL files were exported to fabricate 3D printed casts (Group STL, n=5). Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the dental implant analogs in Groups OT, CT, and STL and scanned with the reference scanner. Using a 3D inspection software program, the recording techniques were compared with the control. Root mean square (RMS) values were calculated from the control, and superimposed digitized casts from different recording techniques. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences in RMS values, and theTukey post hoc test was used to determine difference between different groups. RESULTS: Group CT had the lowest mean dimensional difference when superimposed with Group Control, followed by Groups DS, OT, and STL. Significant differences were found in RMS values between Control and digitized casts fabricated with different techniques (P<.05). The post hoc Tukey test revealed that Group DS (P<.05) was significantly different from the other groups, while no significant difference was found among Groups CT, OT, and STL (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of the present study, 3D printed casts from digital scans have the same accuracy as stone casts from conventional impressions in complete arch implant cases. Intraoral scans had the highest accuracy. Complete arch pick-up impression techniques using dual-functioning scannable pick-up impression copings are as accurate as splinted complete arch pick-up impressions.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]