Abstract
PurposeTo determine whether the accuracy of two-implant model impressions taken with optical scanners was inferior to that of those taken with elastomeric materials.Materials and MethodsImpressions of a resin reference model with two almost parallel implants were taken using three elastomeric impressions (closed tray technique, open tray nonsplinted technique and open tray splinted technique) and scanned with four optical scanners (CEREC Omnicam, 3M True Definition Scanner, 3Shape TRIOS3 and Carestream CS 3600). STL files of the different methods were superimposed and analyzed with control software (Geomagic Control X, 3D systems) to determine the mean deviation between scans.ResultsCompared to elastomeric impressions, optical impressions showed a significantly improved mean precision. TRIOS3 and CS3600 showed a significantly improved mean trueness compared to that of closed tray, CEREC Omnicam and TrueDefinition. All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques.ConclusionsOptical impressions, taken under these in vitro conditions, showed improved accuracy compared with that of elastomeric impressions.
Highlights
Accuracy is crucial to the true passive fit of implant prostheses[1], which the existing clinical procedures and laboratory fabrication methods are unable to achieve
All methods showed a certain degree of implant rotation over their axes, which was significantly higher in the closed tray and the open tray nonsplinted techniques
To address these downsides and to maintain or improve the accuracy of elastomeric methods, several new optical impression systems have been introduced to the market[9]
Summary
Accuracy is crucial to the true passive fit of implant prostheses[1], which the existing clinical procedures and laboratory fabrication methods are unable to achieve. The elastomeric method has procedural shortcomings, and this technique is uncomfortable for the patient and inconvenient for the clinician[6,7,8] To address these downsides and to maintain or improve the accuracy of elastomeric methods, several new optical impression systems have been introduced to the market[9]. These systems appear to improve patient experience[10,11,12] and reduce material costs and time[11, 13] Some authors believe these optical impression systems have minimal distortion, which confers adequate clinical longevity to the prosthesis due to acceptably associated stress[14]; but these systems are, at present, unable to achieve a true “passive” fit. Digital systems have gained wider acceptance in dentistry due to the emergence of more user-friendly and more accurate systems
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
