Comparison of digital scanning and conventional impression taking for implant-supported prostheses
https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2021-24-44-49
Abstract
The effect of discrepancies between digital scans and conventional impressions on the clinical performance of a permanent restoration has not been fully understood.
Thirty patients received conventional impressions and digital scans of a single implant restoration. Two crowns were made for the same implant using both methods. The time taken for each procedure was recorded. After analyzing the accuracy and effectiveness of both crowns, the best one was placed. A questionnaire was conducted to assess the preferences and comfort when using crowns made by one method or another.The total time for the traditional impression technique was 15 minutes, while the time for the digital scanning technique was significantly less – 10 minutes.
The preparation time, including the disinfection of the silicone impressions, their transportation to the laboratory, the casting of the impressions, the hardening of the plaster, as well as the preparation of the model by the technician, was 4 hours for conventional impressions.The timing for sending the STL file and modeling the structure was less than 2 hours for the digital scan method. The production time of crowns takes 3 hours for both conventional impressions and digital ones.
Of all crowns selected for placement, 46.7% were made from conventional impressions and 53.3% from digital scans. Participants preferred the digital scanning technique (89%) over the traditional impression-taking technique (11%).
The data from this study suggest that digital scanning and CAD/CAM technology may be more effective and better accepted by study par-ticipants for a single implant restoration than conventional impressions and plaster casts.
About the Authors
R. V. Studenikin
Dental clinic «Vash Stomatolog»
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
R. V. Studenikin, PhD, Head Doctor
Voronezh
A. A. Mamedov
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
A. A. Mamedov, Doctor of medical science, professor, Head of the Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics
Moscow
References
1. Saponaro P.C., Yilmaz B., Heshmati R.H., McGlumphy E.A. Clinical performance of CAD-CAM-fabricated complete dentures: a cross-sectional study // The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2016. V. 116. No. 3. P. 431–435. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.03.017
2. Chen J., Ahmad R., Suenaga H., Li W., Sasaki K., Swain M., Li Q. Shape optimization for additive manufacturing of removable partial dentures-a new paradigm for prosthetic CAD/CAM // PloS one. 2015. V. 10. No 7. P. e0132552. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132552
3. Barone S., Casinelli M., Frascaria M., Paoli A., Razionale, A. V. Interactive design of dental implant placements through CAD-CAM technologies: from 3D imaging to additive manufacturing // International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM). 2016. V. 10. No 2. P. 105–117. DOI:10.1007/s12008-014-0229-0
4. Zitzmann N.U., Kovaltschuk I., Lenherr P., Dedem P., Joda T. Dental students’ perceptions of digital and conventional impression techniques: A randomized controlled trial //Journal of dental education. 2017. V. 81. No. 10. P. 1227–1232.DOI: 10.21815/JDE.017.081
5. Marti A.M., Harris B.T., Metz M.J., Morton D., Scarfe W.C., Metz C.J., Lin, W. S. Comparison of digital scanning and polyvinyl siloxane impression techniques by dental students: instructional efficiency and attitudes towards technology // European Journal of Dental Education. 2017. V. 21. No. 3. P. 200–205. DOI: 10.1111/eje.12201
6. Cheah C., Lim C., Ma S. The dentist will scan you now: The next generation of digital-savvy graduates // European Journal of Dental Education. 2021. V. 25. No. 2. P. 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12596
7. Giménez B., Pradíes G., Martínez-Rus F., Özcan M. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters // International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants. 2015. V. 30. No. 1. DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3689
8. Menini M., Setti P., Pera F., Pera P., Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure // Clinical oral investigations. 2018. V. 22. No. 3. P. 1253–1262. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9
9. Lee S.J., Jamjoom F.Z., Le T., Radics A., Gallucci G.O. A clinical study comparing digital scanning and conventional impression making for implant-supported prostheses: A crossover clinical trial // The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. – 2021.Feb 15:S0022-3913(21)00028-7 DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.043
10. Ahlholm P., Sipilä K., Vallittu P., Jakonen M., Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review // Journal of Prosthodontics. 2018. V. 27. No. 1. P. 35–41. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12527
11. . Flügge T.V., Schlager S., Nelson K., Nahles S., Metzger M.C. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner // American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2013. V. 144. No. 3. P. 471–478. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
12. Alsharbaty M.H.M., Alikhasi M., Zarrati S., Shamshiri A.R. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques // Journal of Prosthodontics. 2019. V. 28. No. 4. P. e902-e908.DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12764
13. Lambert H., Durand J.C., Jacquot B., Fages M. Dental biomaterials for chairside CAD/CAM: State of the art // The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2017. V. 9. No. 6. P. 486. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.486
14. Ejatidanesh F., Shakibamehr A.H., Savabi O. Comparison of Marginal and Internal Adaptation of CAD/CAM and Conventional Cement Retained Implant-Support-ed Single Crowns // Implant Dentistry. 2016. V. 25. No 1. P. 103–108. DOI: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000346.
15. Di Fiore A., Vigolo P., Graiff L., Stellini E. Digital vs Conventional Workflow for Screw-Retained Single-Implant Crowns: A Comparison of Key Considerations // The International journal of prosthodontics. 2018. V. 31. No. 6. P. 577–579.DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5938
16. Mizumoto R.M., Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A system-atic review // The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2018. V. 120. No. 3. P. 343–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029
17. Buda M., Bratos M., Sorensen J. A. Accuracy of 3-dimensional computer-aided manufactured single-tooth implant definitive casts // The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2018. V. 120. No. 6. P. 913–918. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.02.011
18. Matta R.E., Adler W., Wichmann M., Heckmann, S.M. Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions // The Journal of pros-thetic dentistry. 2017. V. 117. No. 4. P. 507–512. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.026
19. Schepke U., Meijer H.J., Kerdijk W., Cune M.S. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference // The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2015. V. 114. No. 3. P. 403–406. e1.DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.003
20. Imburgia M., Logozzo S., Hauschild U., Veronesi G., Mangano C., Mangano F. G. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study // BMC oral health. 2017. V. 17. No. 1. P. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
21. Brosky M.E., Major R.J., DeLong R., Hodges J.S. Evaluation of dental arch repro-duction using three-dimensional optical digitization // The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2003. V. 90. No. 5. P. 434–440. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.08.021
Review
For citations:
Studenikin R.V., Mamedov A.A. Comparison of digital scanning and conventional impression taking for implant-supported prostheses. Medical alphabet. 2021;(24):44-49. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2021-24-44-49
Views:
510
Email this article 