IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i7p4300-d786604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Jaime Orejas-Perez

    (Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain)

  • Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez

    (Department of Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam ACTA, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

  • Ignacio Ortiz-Collado

    (Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain)

  • Israel J. Thuissard

    (Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain)

  • Andrea Santamaria-Laorden

    (Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

(1) Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. (2) A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student’s t -test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). (3) Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.

Suggested Citation

  • Jaime Orejas-Perez & Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez & Ignacio Ortiz-Collado & Israel J. Thuissard & Andrea Santamaria-Laorden, 2022. "In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4300-:d:786604
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4300/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4300/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Priscilla Medina-Sotomayor & Agustín Pascual M. & Isabel Camps A., 2018. "Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.
    2. Paolo Cappare & Gianpaolo Sannino & Margherita Minoli & Pietro Montemezzi & Francesco Ferrini, 2019. "Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-15, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hang-Nga Mai & Jaeil Kim & Youn-Hee Choi & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "Accuracy of Portable Face-Scanning Devices for Obtaining Three-Dimensional Face Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-15, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Francesca Cattoni & Luca Chirico & Alberto Merlone & Michele Manacorda & Raffaele Vinci & Enrico Felice Gherlone, 2021. "Digital Smile Designed Computer-Aided Surgery versus Traditional Workflow in “All on Four” Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial with 4-Years Follow-Up," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Hang-Nga Mai & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "The Effect of Perioral Scan and Artificial Skin Markers on the Accuracy of Virtual Dentofacial Integration: Stereophotogrammetry Versus Smartphone Three-Dimensional Face-Scanning," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-12, December.
    5. José Vicente Ríos-Santos & Gregorio Tello-González & Pedro Lázaro-Calvo & Francisco Javier Gil Mur & Blanca Ríos-Carrasco & Ana Fernández-Palacín & Mariano Herrero-Climent, 2020. "One Abutment One Time: A Multicenter, Prospective, Controlled, Randomized Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Barbara Sobczak & Piotr Majewski, 2022. "An Integrated Fully Digital Prosthetic Workflow for the Immediate Full-Arch Restoration of Edentulous Patients—A Case Report," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-11, March.
    7. Luca Lavorgna & Gabriele Cervino & Luca Fiorillo & Giovanni Di Leo & Giuseppe Troiano & Marco Ortensi & Luigi Galantucci & Marco Cicciù, 2019. "Reliability of a Virtual Prosthodontic Project Realized through a 2D and 3D Photographic Acquisition: An Experimental Study on the Accuracy of Different Digital Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Roberto Lo Giudice & Fausto Famà, 2020. "Health Care and Health Service Digital Revolution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-2, July.
    9. Massimo Robiony & Elena Bocin & Salvatore Sembronio & Fabio Costa & Vittorio Bresadola & Alessandro Tel, 2020. "Redesigning the Paradigms of Clinical Practice for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery in the Era of Lockdown for COVID-19: From Tradition to Telesemeiology," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-12, September.
    10. Se-Won Park & Ra Gyoung Yoon & Hyunwoo Lee & Heon-Jin Lee & Yong-Do Choi & Du-Hyeong Lee, 2020. "Impacts of Thresholds of Gray Value for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography 3D Reconstruction on the Accuracy of Image Matching with Optical Scan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-11, September.
    11. Naia Bustamante-Hernández & Jose María Montiel-Company & Carlos Bellot-Arcís & José Félix Mañes-Ferrer & María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz & Rubén Agustín-Panadero & Lucía Fernández-Estevan, 2020. "Clinical Behavior of Ceramic, Hybrid and Composite Onlays. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-23, October.

    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:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4300-:d:786604. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.