In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants.

Publisher: Springer Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 101499225 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1861-6429 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 18616410 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: Heidelberg : Springer

Computer-Aided Design* ; Dental Implants* ; Dental Impression Technique*; Imaging, Three-Dimensional/*methods; Dental Impression Materials ; Humans ; Models, Dental ; Reproducibility of Results

Purpose: This study describes a method for measuring the accuracy of the virtual impression.
Methods: In vitro measurements according to a metrological approach were based on (1) use of an opto-mechanical coordinate measuring machine to acquire 3D points from a master model, (2) the mathematical reconstruction of regular geometric features (planes, cylinders, points) from 3D points or an STL file, and (3) consistent definition and evaluation of position and distance errors describing scanning inaccuracies. Two expert and two inexpert operators each made five impressions. The 3D position error, with its relevant X, Y, and Z components, the mean 3D position error of each scanbody, and the intra-scanbody distance error were measured using the analysis of variance and the Sheffe's test for multiple comparison.
Results: Statistically significant differences in the accuracy of the impression were observed among the operators for each scanbody, despite the good reliability (Cronbach's [Formula: see text] = 0.897). The mean 3D position error of the digital impression was between 0.041 ± 0.023 mm and 0.082 ± 0.030 mm.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, which was performed using a single commercial system for preparing digital impressions and one test configuration, the data showed that the digital impressions had a level of accuracy comparable to that reported in other studies, and which was acceptable for clinical and technological applications. The distance between the individual positions (#36 to #46) of the scanbody influenced the magnitude of the error. The position error generated by the intraoral scanner was dependent on the length of the arch scanned. Operator skill and experience may influence the accuracy of the impression.

J Stat Softw. 2013 Sep;54(10):null. (PMID: 24403868)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e406-16. (PMID: 25195544)
J Dent. 2010 Jul;38(7):553-9. (PMID: 20381576)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1994 Mar-Apr;9(2):169-78. (PMID: 8206552)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 May-Jun;28(3):687-93. (PMID: 23748298)
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43312. (PMID: 22937030)
Int J Comput Dent. 2013;16(1):11-21. (PMID: 23641661)
Quintessence Int. 2015 Jan;46(1):9-17. (PMID: 25019118)
J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Nov;84(5):506-13. (PMID: 11105006)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001 Feb;12(1):26-34. (PMID: 11168268)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Aug;19(8):772-9. (PMID: 18720557)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Jul-Aug;29(4):853-62. (PMID: 25032765)
J Prosthodont. 2017 Dec;26(8):650-655. (PMID: 26934046)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Jan;17 Suppl 1:e54-64. (PMID: 23879869)
Int J Prosthodont. 2007 Mar-Apr;20(2):125-31. (PMID: 17455431)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015 Oct;17 Suppl 2:e721-9. (PMID: 25782045)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017 Jun;28(6):648-653. (PMID: 27150731)
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Sep;144(3):471-8. (PMID: 23992820)
Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jun;21(5):1445-1455. (PMID: 27406138)
Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Jun;16(3):851-6. (PMID: 21647591)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2002 Mar-Apr;17(2):231-7. (PMID: 11958406)
J Dent. 2002 Sep-Nov;30(7-8):271-82. (PMID: 12554107)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Mar;14 (1):88-99. (PMID: 19686283)
Int J Prosthodont. 2002 Jan-Feb;15(1):38-42. (PMID: 11887597)
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000;11 Suppl 1:156-8. (PMID: 11168264)
J Oral Implantol. 1992;18(3):264-74. (PMID: 1289562)
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Mar;111(3):186-94. (PMID: 24210732)
J Prosthodont. 2011 Jun;20(4):267-74. (PMID: 21492296)
Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Aug;16(4):1061-70. (PMID: 21932023)
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 May;17(4):1201-8. (PMID: 22847854)
Int J Comput Dent. 2011;14(1):11-21. (PMID: 21657122)
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed (1984). 1985 Dec;95(12):1118-29. (PMID: 3911387)
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2007 Aug;28(8):422-4, 426-8, 430-1. (PMID: 18578100)
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Jul;18(6):1687-94. (PMID: 24240949)
Implant Dent. 2015 Oct;24(5):498-504. (PMID: 26057777)
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Jun;14 (3):434-41. (PMID: 20156230)
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74. (PMID: 843571)
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Mar;85(3):261-7. (PMID: 11264933)
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2001 Jan-Feb;16(1):34-42. (PMID: 11280360)
J Prosthet Dent. 2015 Jan;113(1):17-21. (PMID: 25258269)
Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Mar-Apr;16(2):194-200. (PMID: 12737254)
J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Mar;79(3):328-34. (PMID: 9553888)
J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Jan;87(1):74-9. (PMID: 11807487)
J Prosthet Dent. 1999 May;81(5):553-61. (PMID: 10220659)
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Dec;17(9):2119-25. (PMID: 23371756)

Keywords: Accuracy; CAD–CAM; Digital impression; Opto-mechanical measuring

0 (Dental Implants)
0 (Dental Impression Materials)

Date Created: 20180304 Date Completed: 20181010 Latest Revision: 20211204

20231215

10.1007/s11548-018-1719-5

29500759