Conventional Impression Research Articles

Auxiliary occlusal devices for IO scanning in a complete digital workflow of implant-supported crowns: a randomized controlled trial

ObjectivesTo compare the crown accuracy and time efficiency of a complete digital workflow, utilizing an auxiliary occlusal device and IO scanning, with a conventional workflow, for multiple implant-supported single crowns.Materials and methods24 patients with two adjacent posterior implants were included. 12 patients were randomly assigned to digital workflow group, involving intra-oral scanning with an auxiliary occlusal device and manufacture of customized abutments and zirconia single crowns (test group). The other 12 were assigned to the conventional workflow (control group), involving conventional impression and CAD-CAM crowns based on stone casts. Crown scanning was done before and after clinical adjustment using an intraoral scanner. Two 3D digital models were overlapped to assess dimension changes. Chair-side and laboratory times for the entire workflow were recorded and a linear mixed model and Independent-sample t tests were used for the statistical analysis.ResultsThe maximum occlusal deviation was 279.67 ± 112.17 μm and 479.59 ± 203.63 μm in the test and control group, respectively (p < 0.001). The sizes of the occlusion adjustment areas were 12.12 ± 10.51 mm2 and 25.12 ± 14.14 mm2 in the test and control groups, respectively (p = 0.013). The mean laboratory time was 46.08 ± 5.45 and 105.92 ± 6.10 min in the test and control groups, respectively (p < 0.001).The proximal contact adjustment and mean chair-side time showed no statistically significant difference between two groups.ConclusionsA digital workflow for two implants-supported single crowns using an auxiliary device required fewer occlusal crown adjustments, and less laboratory time compared to conventional workflow.Clinical RelevanceThe use of auxiliary occlusal devices in IOS enhances the accuracy of virtual maxillomandibular relationship in extended edentulous spans. Consequently, employing a digital workflow for multiple implants-supported crowns using IO scanning and an auxiliary occlusal device proves to be a feasible, accurate and efficient approach.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of digital and conventional impression methods for fixed dentures.

Digital impression technique or computer-aided impression (CAI) has been recently concluded as a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression method (CIM) in the fabrication of crowns, short fixed partial dentures (FPDs), and implant-supported crowns. The purpose of this study was to investigate the patients' opinion and subjective perception of two different ways of impression - digital and conventional. A total of 45 patients were treated with CAI and CIM for the fabrication of tooth or implant-supported crowns. They fulfilled a questionnaire including 11 questions regarding the treatment time, gag reflex, discomfort related to manipulation, and other aspects of treatment. CAI was considered the preferential method for future treatment in 53% of patients, whereas 28.9% of the respondents preferred CIM. The preference for the impression method was influenced by the total time spent with the procedure, discomfort during manipulation with the tray or scanning head, size of the tray or scanning head, maximal opening discomfort, and (the tendency towards) gag reflex. CAI was considered a more comfortable and preferential method. Discomfort or difficulties during CAI negatively affected the patients' attitude to CAI, whereas the difficulties associated with CIM did not have any influence on the preferred method.

Clinician- and Patient-Centred Outcomes of Digital Impressions in Infants with Cleft Lip and Palate: A Systematic Review.

This systematic review examines the effectiveness of digital impressions in infants with cleft lip and palate (CLP), focusing on accuracy, operator preferences, and parents' perceptions. The PICO-formulated focused questions assessed the accuracy and operator preference of digital impressions compared to conventional impressions in infants with cleft lip and palate, while also exploring parents' perceptions as patient-centred outcomes. Electronic and manual searches were conducted in five databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library; to acquire grey literature, Google Scholar was also consulted. Both experimental and observational studies that used digital impressions in the clinical care of infants with CLP were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Out of 503 records, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. The accuracy assessment included surface discrepancy and intra-arch measurements. Surface discrepancy studies showed variations in the premaxillary segments, while intra-arch measurements revealed no significant differences. Operators preferred digital impressions, citing reduced stress and streamlined workflows. Parents expressed a clear preference for digital over conventional impressions. The conclusions drawn were substantiated by weak evidence due to the limited number and the high risk of bias of the included studies. Challenges remain here, warranting continued research to enhance accuracy and assess parents' preferences, ensuring optimal outcomes for infants with CLP.

Effect of Utilizing Cheek Retractors on Patient Satisfaction and Trueness of Peripheral Borders in Maxillary Digital Scans for Totally Edentulous Patients: An In Vivo Study.

To evaluate the effect of cheek retractors on the accuracy of capturing peripheral borders in totally edentulous digital scans by comparing the conventional impression technique to digital scans made using two different cheek retractors. Sixteen edentulous maxillary impressions were made using three techniques: the conventional impression technique, using modeling thermoplastic compound and zinc oxide eugenol paste; the digital intraoral scanning technique using the DIO scan retractor (DIO); and using the Br.nemark lip retractor (BRAN). The control impressions of each patient were poured, scanned using a desktop scanner, then transferred into a three-dimensional analysis software. DIO and BRAN groups were scanned using an intraoral scanner, imported, and superimposed using best fit algorithm on the corresponding control. The root mean square for the whole surface and for particular interest regions were calculated to assess the degree of trueness. The patients' perceptions of the impression techniques were the secondary outcomes. Statistical analyses were performed using the one sample T-test and Wilcoxon test (α=.05). Significant discrepancies were found for BRAN and DIO compared to the control. No significant discrepancies were found when comparing RMS of BRAN and DIO at different regions. Scan retractors had a significant impact on patient satisfaction, with patients preferring DIO. Edentulous intraoral scans made using cheek retractors had similar deviations when compared to each other but diverged from the conventional impression in edentulous maxilla. Patient preferences for intraoral scans over conventional impressions were confirmed. The use of different retracting methods during intraoral scanning of totally edentulous maxillary arches does not affect the peripheral border registration.

Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An invitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry.

The purpose of this invitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry. An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best-fit method was then applied in the computer-aided design (CAD) software to compute the three-dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations. Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05). Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross-arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.

Examination of the effect of aging process on marginal fit and fracture strength of temporary crowns prepared from different materials

AimThe aim of this study is to investigate the effect of the aging process on the marginal fit and fracture resistance of temporary crowns prepared using different materials. Materials and methodThe steel die to represent the maxillary first premolar used in this study was produced on a CNC turning machine to include an anatomical occlusal surface. A total of 160 epoxy resin dies were obtained by taking impressions with conventional impression methods on the metal die. Epoxy resin dies were randomly divided into four groups. Temporary crowns were prepared for each group from poly acrylic resin (Vita CADTemp®), bis-acryl composite resin (Protemp 4), poly methyl methacrylate (PMMA; Imident) and poly ethyl methacrylate (PEMA; Dentalon Plus) restorative materials. Half of the specimens (n = 20) in each group (n = 40) were randomly separated and the aging process was applied 5000 times in the device. Marginal gap measurements on epoxy resin dies were made using a stereomicroscope. The fracture strength test of the specimens was performed by using the Instron Universal Test Device. Jamovi 2.2.5 statistical program was used for statistical analysis. ResultsWhen compared to temporary crowns prepared from all other materials, poly acrylic resin (Vita CADTemp ®) temporary crowns observed significantly lower marginal gap values (59,05 μm) regardless of the aging process, and a significantly higher fracture resistance (478,44 N) in the presence of aging process (p < .05 for each). While the highest marginal gap value was detected in PMMA (Imident) (120.36 μm) temporary crowns with aging process, the lowest marginal gap value was observed in poly acrylic resin (Vita CADTemp®) (59.05 μm) crowns without non-aging process. The marginal fit and fracture resistance of all temporary crowns were negatively affected by the aging process. ConclusionOur findings revealed the superiority of poly acrylic resin (Vita CADTemp®) crowns to the temporary crowns prepared from all other materials in terms of the significantly lower marginal gap in the absence of aging process, and the significantly higher fracture resistance in the presence of aging process. Marginal fit and fracture resistance values for all materials were found to be within clinically acceptable limits.

Evaluation of the Mechanical and Adhesion Characteristics of Indirect Restorations Manufactured with Three-Dimensional Printing.

The aim of this study was to investigate the marginal fit and bond strength characteristics of onlay restorations manufactured by three-dimensional printing (Varseo XS, Bego GmbH, Bremen, Germany) and CAD/CAM (CAMcube, Montreal, QC, Canada) systems. Class II onlay cavities on sixty mandibular molars were prepared in cavities and restored in three separate groups using different fabrication methods. Digital and conventional impressions were taken to design the restorations in the CAD system (DWOS, Straumann GmbH, Freiburg, Germany). To evaluate the marginal fit and void volumes, all specimens were scanned with microcomputed tomography. A microshear test was performed to compare the bond strength of the restorations to the tooth surface. The marginal fit values measured for the 3D-printed and CAD/CAM onlay restorations were found to be at clinically acceptable levels (<120 µm), and no significant difference could be observed between the three different fabrication methods (p > 0.05). According to the microshear test results, the CAD/CAM group had the highest bond strength values before (34.82 MPa) and after (26.87 MPa) thermal cycling (p < 0.05), while the 3D-printed and conventionally produced onlays had similar results (p < 0.05). 3D printing technology is a promising option for indirect restorations; however, the post-production phase is as crucial as the printing and cementation phases.

Trueness of Crown Preparation Dies in Dental Models: An In Vitro Assessment of Digital and Analog Workflows.

To assess crown die trueness using additive manufacturing (AM) based on intraoral scanning (IOS) data and compare it with stone models. Crown dies with four finish line types- equigingival shoulder (SAE), subgingival shoulder (SAS), equigingival chamfer (CAE), and subgingival chamfer (CAS)-were incorporated into a reference model and scanned with a coordinate measurement machine (CMM; n = 1 scan). Trios4 (3Shape) scans generated a second reference dataset (IOS; n = 10 scans). Using scans, crown dies were produced with two different 3D printers (MAX UV385 [Asiga] and NextDent 5100 [3DSystems]; n = 10 per system). Stone dies were created from conventional impressions (n = 10). Specimens were digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4, 3Shape). Trueness was evaluated with Geomagic Control X (3DSystems). Data analysis was done using Shapiro-Wilk, Levene, ANOVA, and t tests (α < .05). All crown dies fell within the clinically acceptable trueness range (150 μm). IOS exhibited significantly lower (P < .05; Δ ≤ 21.7 μm) or similar trueness compared to stone models. Asiga dies demonstrated similar and NextDent significantly lower marginal trueness than IOS (P < .05; Δ ≤ 57.3 μm). Most AM margin areas had significantly lower trueness than stone (P < .001; Δ ≤ 57.2 μm). Asiga outperformed NextDent (P < .001). Shoulder trueness surpassed chamfer in optical scans (P = .01). Finish line design and gingiva location did not have a significant impact on AM and stone models (P > .05). Combining IOS and AM achieves clinically acceptable crown die trueness for single molar teeth. The choice of AM device is critical, with Asiga outperforming NextDent. Finish-line design has an impact on optical scans. Finish-line design and marginal gingiva location have little effect on AM trueness.

Dimensional Stability of Additively Manufactured Diagnostic Maxillary Casts Fabricated with Different Model Resins.

To evaluate the effect of model resin type and time interval on the dimensional stability of additively manufactured diagnostic casts. Ten irreversible hydrocolloid impressions and 10 impressions from an intraoral scanner were made from a reference maxillary stone cast, which was also digitized with a laboratory scanner. Conventional impressions were poured in type III stone (SC), while digital impressions were used to additively manufacture casts with a nanographene-reinforced model resin (GP) or a model resin (DM). All casts were digitized with the same laboratory scanner 1 day (T0), 1 week (T1), 2 weeks (T2), 3 weeks (T3), and 4 weeks (T4) after fabrication. Cast scans were superimposed over the reference cast scan to evaluate dimensional stability. Data were analyzed with Bonferroni-corrected repeated measures ANOVA (α = .05). The interaction between the main factors (material type and time interval) affected anterior teeth deviations, while the individual main factors affected anterior teeth and entire-cast deviations (P ≤ .008). Within anterior teeth, DM had the lowest deviations at T3, and GP mostly had lower values at T2 and lower deviations at T3 than at T0 (P ≤ .041). SC had the highest pooled anterior teeth deviations, and GP had the highest pooled entire cast deviations (P < .001). T3 had lower pooled anterior teeth deviations than at T0, T1, and T4, and higher pooled entire cast deviations than T1 were demonstrated (P ≤ .027). The trueness of nanographene-reinforced casts was either similar to or higher than that of other casts. Dimensional changes were acceptable during the course of 1 month.

Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study

ObjectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of conventional polyether impressions and digital scans produced by five intra-oral scanners (IOSs) in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism for long-span implant-supported prostheses. MethodsThis in vitro study involved the impression of a maxillary model with free-end partial edentulism, in which six implants were placed before digitization using a desktop scanner to generate a digital reference model. Conventional impressions (Impregum Penta Soft, 3M) and digital scans with five IOSs (Trios 3 and 4, 3Shape; Primescan, Dentsply-Sirona; CS 3600, Carestream Dental; and i-500, Medit) were obtained. Conventional impressions were digitized using the same desktop scanner. Each digital STL file of conventional or digital impressions was superimposed over the reference STL file to enable comparison. Trueness was assessed by calculating angles and distance deviations. For precision, dispersions of values around their means were also measured. ResultsThe mean distance deviation was significantly higher for conventional impressions (454.24 ± 334.70 µm) than for IOSs (ranging from 160.98 ± 204.48 µm to 255.56 ± 395.89 µm) (p < 0.001). The mean angular deviation was high with conventional impressions (1.82 ± 1.51°), intermediate with CS 3600 (1.38 ± 1.42°), Primescan (1.37 ± 2.54°) and Trios 4 (1.30 ± 0.64°) scanners, and lower with I500 (0.97 ± 0.75°) and Trios 3 (1.01 ± 0.85°) scanners (p < 0.001).The dispersion of distance values around their means was lowest with Trios 3 and i-500, followed by CS3600, Primescan, and Trios 4, respectively, and higher for conventional impressions (p < 0.001). The dispersion of angular values was smallest with i-500, Trios 3, and Trios 4 compared with other groups and was highest with Primescan (p < 0.001). ConclusionsWithin the limits of the current study, Trios 3 scanner exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by i-500, Trios 4, CS 3600, Primescan, and conventional impressions respectively. IOSs might be reliable for the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings. Clinical significancePassive adaptation of the implant-supported framework is a challenge when rehabilitating patients with maxillary free-end partial edentulism. While Conventional impressions remain a reliable and validated technique, but IOSs demonstrated higher accuracy, suitable for the fabrication of long-span implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arch.

Clinical comparative study on the accuracy of palatal rugae in models obtained by different impression materials and intraoral scanning.

Palatal rugae are frequently used in the evaluation of tooth movement after treatment in orthodontics and as a stable region in superimposition. It is important to note that the impression method and material used to record the rugae region affect the accuracy of the impression. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of palatal rugae, in three-dimensional (3D) by employing both conventional and digital impression methods. In this study, 22 patients (12 females, 10 males) mean age of 13.5 ± 1.7years old were selected with complete permanent dentition. Three different impressions were taken from the maxillae of the patients: conventional impression using silicone rubber impression material, conventional impression using alginate impression material, and optical impression using an intraoral scanner. The impressions' digital data were analyzed by the GOM Inspect (Version 2018, Braunschweig, Germany), a 3D analysis software. The Root Mean Square (RMS) values of the total ruga region were evaluated in this software. The data were statistically analyzed using the Jamovi program. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed due to the non-normal distribution of the data. There is no statistically significant difference between the comparison points of the right and left rugae's medial and lateral points and total rugae regions' RMS values. Although there was no statistically significant difference, the total RMS values of alginate and digital scan measurements showed closer results than the RMS values of silicone and digital scan measurements. The study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the total RMS values of the ruga region between traditional and digital impression methods. The treatment period in orthodontics is long. Different impression materials and methods can be used for diagnostic, mid-treatment, and final impressions. For superimpositions and treatment and post-treatment palatal ruga evaluations, traditional and digital impression methods are clinically acceptable and can be used as alternatives to each other.

A comparison study: The use of digital and conventional impression techniques in dental hygiene education.

The study aimed to assess the applicability of digital intraoral scanning in dental hygiene education and compare the quality, efficiency, and ease of use to conventional impression techniques. Twenty-eight first-year dental hygiene students (DH1) at UTHealth Houston School of Dentistry (UTSD) participated in this 2022 study. Each student participated in two 4-h lab sessions. Students took traditional alginate impressions and digital intraoral scans using Planmeca Romexis on standardized teeth during the first and second sessions. Both techniques were assessed by faculty for quality and efficiency using a standardized rubric. Participants completed a post-survey providing insight into their perceptions of both techniques and ease of use. The study had 100% participation in the lab sessions and survey responses (N=28). The results showed digital scanning produced a statistically higher quality product than conventional alginate impressions (p=0.023). The study found no statistical difference in the efficiency between the two methods. The majority of students (82%) agreed that digital intraoral scanning was easy to use (p=0.001), and 89% agreed they would use digital intraoral scanning in clinical courses to help with patient care (p=0.03). In this study, dental hygiene students with limited clinical experience learned new technology and used it to produce quality impressions compared to the conventional technique, indicating the value of introducing digital dentistry early in dental hygiene education.

Comparative Accuracy of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Workflows for Short Span Implant Supported Fixed Partial Denture Fabrication: An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND The advent of digital impressions using computer-aided design and manufacturing technology (CAD/CAM) has simplified and improved the fabrication of implant prostheses in dentistry. The conventional impression has several drawbacks, including tray selection, material type, impression technique, impression disinfection, and cast model storage. The inaccuracies caused by distortion and contraction of impression material can be minimized with digital impressions. This study aimed to compare digital dental impressions of 10 working casts made using the Pindex laser removable die system to fabricate parallel drill channels vs 10 working casts made using the Di-Lok plastic tray removable die system. MATERIAL AND METHODS An implant master die with 2 dental implant analogs was fabricated. Ten working casts using the Pindex laser removable die system with parallel drill channels and 10 working casts using the Di-Lok plastic tray removable die system were fabricated. The working casts were scanned using an extra-oral laboratory scanner and the implant master model was scanned with an intra-oral scanner. RESULTS The properties of the casts made using the 2 systems were evaluated and analyzed with ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test. The mean horizontal linear distances between A1B1 (P<0.021), A2B2 (P<0.018), C1D1 (P<0.026), C2D2 (P<0.03), B1C1 (P<0.01), and mean vertical distances between B1A2 (P<0.015), C1D2 (P<0.001), B1B2 (P<0.028), and C1C2 (P<0.001) were significantly different between the Pindex system and Di-Lok tray system as compared to intra-oral scans. CONCLUSIONS Complete digital workflow with intra-oral scans were more than the partial digital workflow with extra-oral scans for the Pindex system and Di-Lok tray systems.

Comparative Analysis of the Comfort of Children and Adolescents in Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impression Methods: A Crossover Randomized Trial.

A monocentric, analytical, controlled crossover study was designed to compare conventional impression and digital impression with two intraoral scanners (iTeroTM and PrimescanTM) in children and teenagers. Patient comfort was evaluated using a 100 mm VAS scale adapted to Spanish and for children. A descriptive and analytical statistical method was conducted with a confidence level of 95% (p ≤ 0.05) and asymptotic or bilateral significance. A total of 51 subjects were enrolled in the study (mean age = 12.35 years). Although the group of 10-14-year-olds was the most numerous, gender was equally distributed among the age groups. None of the variables on the VAS scale showed differences between the gender categories (p > 0.05). There were differences (p < 0.05) with respect to the age categories, as the middle adolescent group showed the worst general perception and total comfort during the conventional impression. Statistically significant differences were found between all VAS scale items and the three impression methods (p < 0.05). The digital impression technique is superior in terms of total comfort to the conventional alginate impression in children and adolescents.

Accuracy of Silicone Impressions and Stone Models Using Two Laboratory Scanners: A 3D Evaluation.

To evaluate the in vitro accuracy of impressions obtained with two silicone and corresponding stone models using two laboratory scanners. A master model with synthetic resin teeth with two single-unit crown preparations was created and scanned using a 12-megapixel scanner. Five conventional impressions of the physical model were prepared with different silicone impression systems (Zhermack and Coltene) using the double-mix technique and poured with gypsum. The impressions and stone models obtained were scanned using two extraoral scanning systems (Identica T500, Medit; S600 ARTI, Zirkonzahn). All best-fit superimpositions of the teeth areas were conducted between the master model and the scans of the impressions and models obtained with the two scanners. A P < .05 level was considered significant. The Identica T500 Medit scanner showed an accuracy of 102.34 (89.67, 115.01) μm for Coltene silicone and 79.51 (67.82, 91.21) μm for Zhermack silicone, while the S600 ARTI Zirkonzhan scanner presented 110.79 (98.24, 123.33) μm and 91.91 (81.29, 102.54) μm, respectively, with significant differences between scanners for Zhermack silicone (P = .008) and for the corresponding stone models (P = .002). Zhermack silicone presented overall discrepancies lower than Coltene silicone, with statistically significant differences in both scanners analyzed (P < .001; P = .017). However, the discrepancies found were within clinically acceptable values. With the Zirkonzahn scanner, discrepancies found in the Zhermack impressions were lower than in the corresponding stone models (P < .001). The direct digitization of silicone impressions with laboratory scanners presented comparable results to conventional techniques with stone models.

Repositioning accuracy of the implant- and abutment-level prosthetic components used in conventional and digital workflows

ObjectivesTo evaluate the repositioning accuracy of the implant- and abutment-level impression components (impression abutments and implant scan bodies) and implant abutments (with and without anti-rotational hex index); also, to estimate the tightening torque influence on the positional stability of abutments. MethodsSeven types of prosthetic components (n = 7) [impression pick-up copings (PC), implant scan bodies (ISB), non‑hex and hex titanium base implant abutments (TB H and TB NH), multi-unit impression copings (MU PC), multi-unit implant scan bodies (MU ISB), and multi-unit caps (MU C) (Medentika GmbH)] were tested. For repositioning accuracy tests a coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used. During assembly 15 Ncm torque for all components was applied. After measurement, only hex and non‑hex abutments were torqued to 25 Ncm and their coordinates were again recorded to assess torque influence. The procedure was repeated 7 times for each component. Linear and 3D deviations, angulation to the vertical axis, and axial rotation were calculated. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the measurements between the groups. A post-hoc test (Mann–Whitney U test) was used for pairwise comparison to determine the influence of the torque (α=0.05). ResultsImplant- and abutment-level components used for digital scans showed different positional discrepancies compared to ones used for conventional impressions and ranged from 10 to 37 µm. Hex abutments demonstrated statistically significantly lower 3D deviations (4.4 ± 7.1 µm) compared to non‑hex abutments (8.7 ± 6.1 µm). Torque influence was significantly lower for hex abutments than for non‑hex abutments. ConclusionsRepositioning inaccuracies were found in all implant- and abutment-level impression components (impression abutments and implant scan bodies) and all abutments (with and without anti-rotational hex index) tested. Final tightening of the components could cause further positional discrepancies. Clinical significanceThe misfit of the prosthetic components used in conventional and digital workflows stays in the clinically acceptable range. Even when multiple connections and disconnections on the track of the laboratory preparation is needed, it should not have a negative influence for single teeth reconstructions. However, in the complex cases with multiple implants, repetitive repositioning of the prosthetic components may lead to the accumulation of vertical, horizontal and rotational errors leading to the clinical problems with the passive fit of the final framework.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Single Implant-Supported Zirconia Crowns Following a Digital and Conventional Workflow: Four-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

This study aimed to compare the clinical and radiographic outcomes of single posterior screw-retained monolithic implant crowns following a digital and conventional workflow and to report on the survival/complication rate after a mean 4-year follow-up. Thirty patients with a single posterior tooth missing were rehabilitated with a bone-level implant. After a healing period of ≥3 months, they were subjected to both a digital and conventional workflow to fabricate two screw-retained monolithic implant crowns. The quantitative clinical adjustments to both crowns (intrasubject comparison) and a questionnaire were recorded at try-in. Thereafter, a crown of the digital and conventional workflows was randomly inserted. At the last follow-up, the marginal bone level (MBL), peri-implant health-related parameters (bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque, pocket probing depth (PPD)), and functional implant prosthodontic score (FIPS) were assessed. Furthermore, the implant survival and success rates and technical complications were evaluated. A total of 27 patients were followed for a mean period of 4.23 ± 1.10 years. There was no significant difference between the digital and conventional workflows regarding clinical adjustments and questionnaire outcomes. More than twice as many participants recommended digital (n = 16) compared to conventional impressions (n = 7) to friends. The implant survival and success rate were 100% and 96.3%, respectively. Furthermore, two de-cementations and one fracture of the ti-base abutment occurred. There were no significant differences in BoP, plaque, and PPD metrics between the two groups. The changes in the MBL between implant crown insertion (baseline) and the last follow-up were 0.07 ± 0.19 mm and 0.34 ± 0.62 mm in the digital and conventional groups, respectively (p = 0.195). The mean overall FIPS score was 8.11 ± 1.37 (range: 5-10). The clinical and radiographic outcomes of single screw-retained monolithic implant crowns were similar between both workflows after a mean of 4 years of service. The patients did not clearly prefer an impression technique for their restoration, although they would recommend the digital impression more often to friends. Thus, decision regarding clinical workflows may be based on the patient's and/or clinician's preference.

Effect of Tooth Mobility on the Accuracy of Conventional Impressions: A Pilot Study.

To study the influence of tooth mobility on the accuracy of conventional impressions. In total, 10 patients with mobile anterior teeth and 10 healthy patients were treated with conventional impressions and intraoral digital impressions. The digital impression group was recorded as standard data, the mobile teeth group was recorded as the experimental group, and the healthy anterior teeth group was recorded as the control group. We imported digital impression and irreversible hydrocolloid impression files into Geomagic Wrap and marked reference points to execute N-point alignment, then we recorded the coordinates. Paired-samples t test was used to analyze whether the point coordinates of mobile teeth were statistically significant (a = .05). One-way ANOVA was used to analyze whether there was a relationship between coordinate differences and tooth mobility in the distal, coronal, and buccal directions (a = .05). In the buccal and coronal directions, the difference was statistically significant between the conventional and digital impression groups. In the buccal direction, the accuracy differences of I-degree and II-degree mobile teeth were 0.149 mm and 0.401 mm, respectively. In the coronal direction, the differences were 0.128 mm and 0.233 mm, respectively. Meanwhile, ANOVA analysis showed that there was a relationship between point coordinate difference and tooth mobility in the buccal and coronal directions. Conventional impressions can influence the accuracy of mobile tooth impressions. Therefore, digital impressions should be adopted for mobile teeth impressions.

In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings

Statement of problemIntraoral digital scan techniques have been widely used and sufficient evidence supports this technique in partially edentulous patients. However, the evidence supporting the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for edentulous patients is limited. PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the accuracy of complete arch conventional pick-up implant impressions with open and closed trays, complete arch digital implant scans with IOSs, and 3-dimensional (3D) printed casts from complete arch digital implant scans. Material and methodsSix implants were placed in a mandibular model. Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the implants, scanned with a reference scanner, and exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format (Group Control). Splinted open-tray pick-up impressions (Group OT, n=5) and closed-tray pick-up impressions (Group CT, n=5) were made, and stone casts were fabricated. Digital scans (Group DS, n=5) were made with an IOS, and the STL files were exported to fabricate 3D printed casts (Group STL, n=5). Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the dental implant analogs in Groups OT, CT, and STL and scanned with the reference scanner. Using a 3D inspection software program, the recording techniques were compared with the control. Root mean square (RMS) values were calculated from the control, and superimposed digitized casts from different recording techniques. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences in RMS values, and theTukey post hoc test was used to determine difference between different groups. ResultsGroup CT had the lowest mean dimensional difference when superimposed with Group Control, followed by Groups DS, OT, and STL. Significant differences were found in RMS values between Control and digitized casts fabricated with different techniques (P<.05). The post hoc Tukey test revealed that Group DS (P<.05) was significantly different from the other groups, while no significant difference was found among Groups CT, OT, and STL (P>.05). ConclusionsBased on the findings of the present study, 3D printed casts from digital scans have the same accuracy as stone casts from conventional impressions in complete arch implant cases. Intraoral scans had the highest accuracy. Complete arch pick-up impression techniques using dual-functioning scannable pick-up impression copings are as accurate as splinted complete arch pick-up impressions.

Comparative Analysis of Intraoral Scanners and Traditional Impression Methods in Full-Arch Implantology: A Systematic Review

Background: The comparative effectiveness of intraoral scanners (IOS) and conventional impression (CI) methods in full-arch implantology has been a topic of ongoing debate. This systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive comparison of these methods across different applications and conditions. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, with the search conducted across different online databases and the relevant studies were extracted, following which they underwent bias assessment and their relevance towards this review was examined. Results: Five in-vitro studies, encompassing various types of IOS and CI methods, were systematically reviewed. The review revealed that neither IOS nor CI could be deemed universally superior. Their relative effectiveness varied depending on several factors, including the specific application, the presence or absence of landmarks, and the type of dimensional analysis used. For instance, while digital techniques offered advantages in terms of minimal distortion for tilted implants, conventional methods demonstrated superior trueness in other scenarios. Conclusion: The findings underscored the importance of a context-specific approach in selecting between IOS and CI, thereby guiding clinical practice and informing future research. However, the transferability of the findings to clinical practice may be limited due to the in-vitro study design, the variety of IOS types, the unaccounted influence of operator skill, and the incomplete exploration of the role of landmarks. Future studies should address these limitations to further enhance our understanding of full-arch implantology.