Comparison of the Accuracy and Time Efficiency of Two Different digital Impressions of Single Tooth Implant Treatments

Year 2020, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 72 - 80, 24.03.2020

Muhammed Alıbrahım Yılmaz Umut Aslan

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.675276

Abstract

Objective: Over the last decades, techniques and materials have evolved with the improvement in digital technology. Computer-aided impressions have been transforming the dental implant field with these developments. The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the accuracy and time efficiency between two intraoral scanning systems in single tooth implant treatment.
Material and

Method: 10 patients with single tooth bone level implant (Straumann, Basel, Switzerland) received one conventional impression with polyvinyl siloxane and three scans with 2 different intra-oral scanners (CEREC AC Omnicam and Straumann CARES IOS). The time required for the impressions was measured at this stage. The casts obtained from conventional impressions were scanned as the master model to evaluate accuracy. Digital impression files were analyzed using software (Geomagic Control). Independent Samples Test was performed for trueness and precision. One-way ANOVA was executed for time efficiency. Least significant difference test for post hoc comparison was conducted (p<0.05).

Results: The differences between the two systems regarding trueness and precision were not statistically significant (P>0.05), but a statistically significant difference was found in the time efficiency (P<0.05). CEREC AC showed the lowest mean values in time measures.

Conclusions: There was no difference regarding accuracy in the comparison between CEREC AC Omnicam and CARES. CEREC AC Omnicam was found to be superior in terms of time efficiency in comparison to CARES and conventional impressions.

Keywords

Intraoral digital scanning, Implant impression, Accuracy, CAD/CAM

References

• 1. Kusnoto B, Evans C. Reliability of a 3D surface laser scanner for orthodontic applications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122:342-8.
• 2. Hacker T, Heydecke G, Reissmann DR. Impact of procedures during prosthodontic treatment on patients’ perceived burdens. Journal of Dentistry 2015; 43:51-7.
• 3. Joffe L. Current Products and Practices OrthoCAD™: digital models for a digital era. J Orthod 2014; 3:344-347.
• 4. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 2008; 139:761-3.
• 5. Chochlidakis MK, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng J, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116:184-190.
• 6. Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: An in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010; 12:63‑76.
• 7. Aslan YU, Ozkan Y. Comparing volumetric dimensional stability and accuracy of newly formulated polyvinyl siloxanether, polyvinyl siloxane and polyether impression materials using micro-computed tomography. Clin Exp Health Sci. 2019; 9:94-100.
• 8. Vecsei B, Joós-Kovács G, Borbely J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems – An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 61:177-184.
• 9. Kravitz N, Groth C, Jones P, Graham J, Redmond WR. Intraoral Digital Scanners. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48:337-347.
• 10. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014; 25:1113-1118.
• 11. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont 2016; 27:35-41.
• 12. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009; 140:1301-1304.
• 13. Joda T, Bragger U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: a cost/time analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015; 26:1430-1435.
• 14. Fasbinder DJ. Computerized technology for restorative dentistry. Am J Dent 2013; 26:115-120. 15. Joda T, Bragger U. Time-efficiency analysis of the treatment with monolithic implant crowns in a digital workflow: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016; 27;1401-1406.
• 16. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Invisting 2014; 18:1687-94.
• 17. Boldt J, Knapp W, Proff P, Rottner K, Richter EJ. Measurement of tooth and implant mobility under physiological loading conditions. Ann Anat 2012; 194:185–189.
• 18. Gimenez BD, Ozcan MD, Martinez-Rus FD, Pradies GD. 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 2015; 17:54-64.
• 19. Correia AR, Sampaio Fernandes JC, Cardoso JA, et al. CAD-CAM: informatics applied to fixed prosthodontics. Rev Odontol UNESP 2006; 35:183-189.
• 20. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013; 24:111-5. 21. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014; 14:10.
• 22. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;1 7:149. doi:10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x.
• 23. Carvalho TF, Lima JFM, De Matos JDM, Lopes GRS, De Vasconcelos JEL, Zogheib LV, De Castro DSM. Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining dental Impressions. Int J Odontostomat 2018; 12:368-375.
• 24. Schepke U, Meijer HJA, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114:403–406.