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: Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry.
    Author: Cheng J, Zhang H, Liu H, Li J, Wang HL, Tao X.
    Journal: Clin Oral Implants Res; 2024 May; 35(5):560-572. PubMed ID: 38421115.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best-fit method was then applied in the computer-aided design (CAD) software to compute the three-dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross-arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]