» Articles » PMID: 28222869

Accuracy Evaluation of Intraoral Optical Impressions: A Clinical Study Using a Reference Appliance

Overview
Journal J Prosthet Dent
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2017 Feb 23
PMID 28222869
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Statement Of Problem: Trueness and precision are used to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral optical impressions. Although the in vivo precision of intraoral optical impressions has been reported, in vivo trueness has not been evaluated because of limitations in the available protocols.

Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of optical and conventional impressions by using a novel study design.

Material And Methods: Five study participants consented and were enrolled. For each participant, optical and conventional (vinylsiloxanether) impressions of a custom-made intraoral Co-Cr alloy reference appliance fitted to the mandibular arch were obtained by 1 operator. Three-dimensional (3D) digital models were created for stone casts obtained from the conventional impression group and for the reference appliances by using a validated high-accuracy reference scanner. For the optical impression group, 3D digital models were obtained directly from the intraoral scans. The total mean trueness of each impression system was calculated by averaging the mean absolute deviations of the impression replicates from their 3D reference model for each participant, followed by averaging the obtained values across all participants. The total mean precision for each impression system was calculated by averaging the mean absolute deviations between all the impression replicas for each participant (10 pairs), followed by averaging the obtained values across all participants. Data were analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA (α=.05), first to assess whether a systematic difference in trueness or precision of replicate impressions could be found among participants and second to assess whether the mean trueness and precision values differed between the 2 impression systems.

Results: Statistically significant differences were found between the 2 impression systems for both mean trueness (P=.010) and mean precision (P=.007). Conventional impressions had higher accuracy with a mean trueness of 17.0 ±6.6 μm and mean precision of 16.9 ±5.8 μm than optical impressions with a mean trueness of 46.2 ±11.4 μm and mean precision of 61.1 ±4.9 μm.

Conclusions: Complete arch (first molar-to-first molar) optical impressions were less accurate than conventional impressions but may be adequate for quadrant impressions.

Citing Articles

In-vitro validation of a new method to assess the clinical accuracy of complete arch impressions.

Waldecker M, Katherina S, Wolfgang B, Peter R, Stefan R Clin Oral Investig. 2025; 29(3):156.

PMID: 39998713 PMC: 11861410. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-025-06236-1.


An Evaluation of the Accuracy of Digital Models-An In Vitro Study.

Janosi K, Cerghizan D, Bai E, Muresan I, Kovacs A, Szasz A Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(10).

PMID: 39452441 PMC: 11506541. DOI: 10.3390/dj12100313.


Effect of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanners: a meta-analysis of studies.

Hardan L, Bourgi R, Lukomska-Szymanska M, Hernandez-Cabanillas J, Zamarripa-Calderon J, Jorquera G J Adv Prosthodont. 2024; 15(6):315-332.

PMID: 38205120 PMC: 10774636. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2023.15.6.315.


A double blinded trial to compare the patient satisfaction and crown accuracy of two different intraoral scanners for the fabrication of monolithic lithium disilicate single crowns.

Yang C, Cheng C, Ye S, Chien C J Dent Sci. 2023; 18(3):1206-1211.

PMID: 37404630 PMC: 10316427. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2022.08.026.


The effect of scanning pathways on trueness and precision in full-arch optical impression.

Kuroda S, Yotsuya M, Sato T, Hisanaga R, Nomoto S, Sekine H BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23(1):390.

PMID: 37316808 PMC: 10265779. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03101-z.


References
1.
Jacobs M, Windeler A . An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65(3):436-42. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(91)90239-s. View

2.
Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J . Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010; 38(7):553-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015. View

3.
Belser U, MacEntee M, Richter W . Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53(1):24-9. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90058-7. View

4.
Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U . Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2016; 27(1):35-41. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12527. View

5.
Ziegler M . Digital impression taking with reproducibly high precision. Int J Comput Dent. 2009; 12(2):159-63. View