Abstract
BackgroundTo compare the accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation.MethodsA master cast containing 6 implant abutment replicas was fabricated. Group PG: digital impressions were taken 10 times using a photogrammetry system; Group IOS: intraoral scanning was performed to fabricate 10 digital impressions; Group CNV: splinted open-tray impression technique was used to fabricate 10 definitive casts. The master cast and conventional definitive casts were digitized with a laboratory reference scanner. For all STL files obtained, scan bodies were converted to implant abutment replicas using a digital library. The accuracy of a digitizer was defined by 2 main parameters, trueness and precision. "Trueness" was used to describe the deviation between test files and reference file, and "precision" was used to describe the closeness between test files. Then, the trueness and precision of three impression techniques were evaluated and statistically compared (α = 0.05).ResultsThe median trueness was 24.45, 43.45 and 28.70 μm for group PG, IOS and CNV; Group PG gave more accurate trueness than group IOS (P < 0.001) and group CNV (P = 0.033), group CNV showed more accurate trueness than group IOS (P = 0.033). The median precision was 2.00, 36.00 and 29.40 μm for group PG, IOS and CNV; Group PG gave more accurate precision than group IOS (P < 0.001) and group CNV (P < 0.001), group CNV showed more accurate precision than IOS (P = 0.002).ConclusionsFor complete-arch implant rehabilitation, the photogrammetry system showed the best accuracy of all the impression techniques evaluated, followed by the conventional impression technique, and the intraoral scanner provided the least accuracy.
Highlights
To compare the accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation
The trueness and precision are shown by the median and interquartile range (IQR) of the root mean square (RMS) values (Tables 2, 3)
This study compared the accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques in an edentulous maxilla stone cast with 6 implant abutment replicas
Summary
To compare the accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Intraoral scanning is a widely used digital impression technique in clinical practice. Whether intraoral scanners can be applied to complete-arch implant impressions is still questionable [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. When scanning a complete edentulous arch, multiple clinical factors have been proven to influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning, such as intraoral scanner brand [18, 19], ambient light [20], scan body types [21,22,23], interimplant distance [11], scanning range [24], characteristics of the mucosa [25], movable mucosa [26], and scanning pattern [27]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
