A Comparative Study to Evaluate The Accuracy of Open Tray Splinted and Non-Splinted Implant Level Impressions and Impressions Obtained From Two Intraoral Scanners For Three Implants Placed in A Partially Edentulous Arch - An in Vitro Study
Authors/Creators
- 1. International Journal of Medical Science and Innovative Research (IJMSIR)
Description
Abstract
Title: A comparative study to evaluate the accuracy of open tray splinted and non-splinted implant level impressions and impressions obtained from two intraoral scanners for three implants placed in a partially edentulous arch - an in vitro study
Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare and evaluate the accuracy of open tray splinted and non-splinted Implant level impression and impressions obtained from two intraoral scanners for three implants placed in a partially edentulous arch and to evaluate which of the two scanners used (Trios 3 shape and Upsera intraoral scanners) has the better trueness and precision value.
Methods: Three implants were placed in a partially edentulous arch model simulating clinical conditions. Impressions were made using open tray splinted and non-splinted techniques and models were fabricated as well as the study model was scanned with two intraoral scanners (Trios 3 shape and Upsera intraoral scanners). The models were then digitally scanned and compared with a reference scan using a Exocad software. Measurements were made by superimposing the group scans over the reference scan.
Results: The results revealed that the open tray splinted impression technique was found more accurate than the non-splinted impression techniques. However, impressions obtained from trios 3 shape intraoral scanners showed significantly higher accuracy compared to the other scanner and the conventional impression techniques. The differences in accuracy were statistically significant (p < 0.05) at specific landmarks.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that open tray splinted was superior than non-splinted impression techniques in terms of accuracy for three implants placed in a partially edentulous arch. However, trios 3 shape intraoral scanners demonstrated superior accuracy compared to Upsera intraoral scanner and conventional impression techniques.
Files
SHRADDHA.pdf
Files
(1.6 MB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:93f6749ddc244e966305917586de3807
|
1.6 MB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Software
- Repository URL
- https://ijmsir.com/issue/archive_issue/109/Issue%204%20July
References
- 1. Bud, E.S.; Bocanet, V.I.; Muntean, M.H.; Vlasa, A.; Bucur, S.M.; P ˘acurar, M.; Dragomir, B.R.; Olteanu, C.D.; Bud, A. Accuracy of Three-Dimensional (3D) Printed Dental Digital Models Generated with Three Types of Resin Polymers by Extra-Oral Optical Scanning. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1908. 2. Rotar, R. N., Jivanescu, A., Ille, C., Podariu, A. C., Jumanca, D. E., Matichescu, A.-M., … Rusu, L. C. (2019). Trueness and Precision of Two Intraoral Scanners: A Comparative In Vitro Study. Scanning, 2019, 1–6. 3. Mutwalli, H., Braian, M., Mahmood, D., & Larsson, C. (2018). Trueness and Precision of Three-Dimensional Digitizing Intraoral Devices. International Journal of Dentistry, 2018, 1–10. 4. Michelinakis, G., Apostolakis, D., Tsagarakis, A., Kourakis, G., & Pavlakis, E. (2019). A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: A single-blinded in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 5. Sawase, t., & kuroshima, s. (2020). The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. Dental Materials Journal. 6. Schimmel, M., Akino, N., Srinivasan, M., Wittneben, J.-G., Yilmaz, B., & Abou-Ayash, S. (2020). Accuracy of intraoral scanning in completely and partially edentulous maxillary and mandibular jaws: an in vitro analysis. Clinical Oral Investigations. 7. Mangano, F. G., Veronesi, G., Hauschild, U., Mijiritsky, E., & Mangano, C. (2016). Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study. PLOS ONE, 11(9), e0163107. 8. Treesh, J. C., Liacouras, P. C., Taft, R. M., Brooks, D. I., Raiciulescu, S., Ellert, D. O., … Ye, L. (2018). Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 9. Pesce, P., Pera, F., Setti, P., & Menini, M. (2018). Precision and Accuracy of a Digital Impression Scanner in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation. The International Journal of Prosthodontics, 31(2), 171–175. 10. Maria Binte Rahmat; Ming Yi Tan; Keng Mun Wong; Bruce Chi Hong Lee; Vanessa Ai Ping Chia; Keson Beng Choon Tan, (2020). Accuracy of Implant Analogs in 3D Printed Resin Models Journal of Prosthodontics. 11. Chiu, A., Chen, Y.-W., Hayashi, J., & Sadr, A. (2020). Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters. Sensors, 20(4), 1157. 12. Sanda, M., Miyoshi, K., & Baba, K. (2021). Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review. International Journal of Implant Dentistry, 7(1). 13. Paolo Pesce , Francesco Bagnasco, Nicolò Pancini, Marco Colombo, Luigi Canullo, Francesco Pera, Eriberto Bressan, Marco Annunziata and Maria Menini (2021). Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Implant-Supported Rehabilitations: An In Vitro Analysis on the Effect of Operators' Experience and Implant Number. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021, 10, 5917. 14. Zhang, T., Wei, T., Zhao, Y., Jiang, M., Yin, X., & Sun, H. (2022). Evaluating the accuracy of three intraoral scanners using models containing different numbers of crown-prepared abutments. Journal of Dental Sciences, 17(1), 204–210. 15. Natsubori, R., Fukazawa, S., Chiba, T. et al. In vitro comparative analysis of scanning accuracy of intraoral and laboratory scanners in measuring the distance between multiple implants. Int J Implant Dent 8, 18 (2022).