The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition

  • Rhee, Ye-Kyu (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Huh, Yoon-Hyuk (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Cho, Lee-Ra (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University) ;
  • Park, Chan-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics and Research Institute of Oral Science, College of Dentistry, Gangneung-Wonju National University)
  • Received : 2015.05.22
  • Accepted : 2015.11.13
  • Published : 2015.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriate impression technique by analyzing the superimposition of 3D digital model for evaluating accuracy of conventional impression technique and digital impression. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Twenty-four patients who had no periodontitis or temporomandibular joint disease were selected for analysis. As a reference model, digital impressions with a digital impression system were performed. As a test models, for conventional impression dual-arch and full-arch, impression techniques utilizing addition type polyvinylsiloxane for fabrication of cast were applied. 3D laser scanner is used for scanning the cast. Each 3 pairs for 25 STL datasets were imported into the inspection software. The three-dimensional differences were illustrated in a color-coded map. For three-dimensional quantitative analysis, 4 specified contact locations(buccal and lingual cusps of second premolar and molar) were established. For two-dimensional quantitative analysis, the sectioning from buccal cusp to lingual cusp of second premolar and molar were acquired depending on the tooth axis. RESULTS. In color-coded map, the biggest difference between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression was seen (P<.05). In three-dimensional analysis, the biggest difference was seen between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression and the smallest difference was seen between dual-arch and full-arch impression. CONCLUSION. The two- and three-dimensional deviations between intraoral scanner and dual-arch impression was bigger than full-arch and dual-arch impression (P<.05). The second premolar showed significantly bigger three-dimensional deviations than the second molar in the three-dimensional deviations (P>.05).

Keywords

References

  1. The glossary of prosthodontic terms. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:10-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.03.013
  2. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:285-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5
  3. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70229-5
  4. Cox JR, Brandt RL, Hughes HJ. The double arch impression technique: a solution to prevent supraocclusion in the indirect restoration. Gen Dent 2000;48:86-91.
  5. Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X. The effect of tray selection, viscosity of impression material, and sequence of pour on the accuracy of dies made from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:143-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00276-2
  6. Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Phillips KM. A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a completearch custom tray. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:228-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00237-3
  7. Hahn SM, Millstein PL, Kinnunen TH, Wright RF. The effect of impression volume and double-arch trays on the registration of maximum intercuspation. J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:362-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60194-3
  8. Kang AH, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Wataha JC. Accuracy of a reformulated fast-set vinyl polysiloxane impression material using dual-arch trays. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:332-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60066-4
  9. Johnson GH, Mancl LA, Schwedhelm ER, Verhoef DR, Lepe X. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60208-0
  10. Parker MH, Cameron SM, Hughbanks JC, Reid DE. Comparison of occlusal contacts in maximum intercuspation for two impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:255-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70023-4
  11. Cox JR, Brandt RL, Hughes HJ. A clinical pilot study of the dimensional accuracy of double-arch and complete-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:510-5. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.124489
  12. Cox JR. A clinical study comparing marginal and occlusal accuracy of crowns fabricated from double-arch and completearch impressions. Aust Dent J 2005;50:90-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2005.tb00346.x
  13. Kaplowitz GJ. Trouble-shooting dual arch impressions II. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128:1277-81. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0405
  14. Burke FJ, Crisp RJ. A practice-based assessment of the handling of a fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane impression material used with the dual-arch tray technique. Quintessence Int 2001;32:805-10.
  15. Christensen GJ. Ensuring accuracy and predictability with double-arch impressions. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:1123-5. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0315
  16. Johnson GH, Mancl LA, Schwedhelm ER, Verhoef DR, Lepe X. Clinical trial investigating success rates for polyether and vinyl polysiloxane impressions made with full-arch and dual-arch plastic trays. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60208-0
  17. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
  18. Touchstone A, Nieting T, Ulmer N. Digital transition: the collaboration between dentists and laboratory technicians on CAD/CAM restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2010;141:15S-9S. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2010.0353
  19. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y. CAD/CAM systems available for the fabrication of crown and bridge restorations. Aust Dent J 2011;56:97-106.
  20. Choi HS, Moon JE, Kim SH. The Application of CAD/ CAM in Dentistry. J Korean Dent Assoc 2012;50:110-7.
  21. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015
  22. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1201-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0
  23. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont 2015;24:313-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12218
  24. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  25. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4
  26. Quaas S, Rudolph H, Luthardt RG. Direct mechanical data acquisition of dental impressions for the manufacturing of CAD/CAM restorations. J Dent 2007;35:903-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.08.008
  27. da Costa JB, Pelogia F, Hagedorn B, Ferracane JL. Evaluation of different methods of optical impression making on the marginal gap of onlays created with CEREC 3D. Oper Dent 2010;35:324-9. https://doi.org/10.2341/09-178-L
  28. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions?. J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:761-3. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258
  29. Luthardt RG, Kuhmstedt P, Walter MH. A new method for the computer-aided evaluation of three-dimensional changes in gypsum materials. Dent Mater 2003;19:19-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00013-1
  30. Price RB, Gerrow JD, Sutow EJ, MacSween R. The dimensional accuracy of 12 impression material and die stone combinations. Int J Prosthodont 1991;4:169-74.
  31. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:853-62. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3343
  32. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1461-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027
  33. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12375
  34. Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:851-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5

Cited by

  1. In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques vol.12, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179188
  2. Accuracy Evaluation of a Stereolithographic Surgical Template for Dental Implant Insertion Using 3D Superimposition Protocol vol.2017, pp.1687-8736, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4292081
  3. Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression vol.2017, pp.2040-2309, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/8427595
  4. The influence of change in slice thickness on the accuracy of reconstruction of cranium geometry vol.231, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1177/0954411916688717
  5. Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy vol.26, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000683
  6. Verification of a computer-aided replica technique for evaluating prosthesis adaptation using statistical agreement analysis vol.9, pp.5, 2017, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.5.358
  7. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature vol.17, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x
  8. Efficient digitalization method for dental restorations using micro-CT data vol.7, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44577
  9. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques pp.1059941X, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12764
  10. study vol.10, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.388
  11. Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions vol.13, pp.9, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202916
  12. Accuracy of new implant impression technique using dual arch tray and bite impression coping vol.10, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.4.265
  13. Improved accuracy of mandible geometry reconstruction at the stage of data processing and modeling vol.41, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13246-018-0664-5
  14. Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method vol.10, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.245
  15. Accuracy of Casts Fabricated by Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions vol.45, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-17-00142
  16. The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete‐arch implant scans vol.21, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12821
  17. Evaluation of the Adaptation of Complete Dentures Fabricated Using Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Techniques vol.21, pp.12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2977
  18. Learning curve of digital intraoral scanning – an in vivo study vol.20, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-01278-1
  19. Three‐Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions vol.30, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13264
  20. Full-arch accuracy of five intraoral scanners: In vivo analysis of trueness and precision vol.51, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.2.95
  21. Digital Procedures Compared to Conventional Gypsum Casts in the Manufacturing of CAD/CAM Adhesive Restorations: 3D Surface Trueness and Interfacial Adaptation Analysis vol.11, pp.11, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11115060
  22. Comparative study of three composite materials in bonding attachments for clear aligners vol.24, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12465
  23. Accuracy of Implant Level Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry Impression Techniques in a Complete Arch with Angled and Parallel Implants: An In Vitro Study vol.11, pp.21, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219859