» Articles » PMID: 34073329

Accuracy of Proximal and Occlusal Contacts of Single Implant Crowns Fabricated Using Different Digital Scan Methods: An In Vitro Study

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2021 Jun 2
PMID 34073329
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of the proximal and occlusal contacts of single implant crowns fabricated with four data capture methods. The resin models were mounted on an articulator, digitized using a laboratory scanner, and saved as a standard tessellation language (STL) file to serve as the master reference model (MRM). Two different intraoral scan body (ISB) systems were evaluated: polyetheretherketone (PEEK) short scan body (SSB) and PEEK long scan body (LSB) ( = 12). The digital impressions (SSB and LSB) were acquired using an intraoral scanner with ISB. Two different conventional techniques were also evaluated: PEEK short scan body with coping plastic cap (CPC) and pick-up coping (PUC) ( = 12). The implant impressions (CPC and PUC) were recorded using a conventional impression technique. The crown and abutment were fabricated with a milling machine and then placed on the resin model and scanned using a laboratory scanner. The scanned files were saved as STL files to serve as test datasets. The MRM and test datasets were superimposed, and the mesial, distal, and occlusal distances were calculated using a 3D inspection software and statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test (α = 0.05). The direct data capture group had more accurate contact points on the three surfaces, with mesial contact of 64.7 (12.8) µm followed by distal contact of 65.4 (15) µm and occlusal contact of 147 (35.8) µm in the SSB group, and mesial contact of 84.9 (22.6) µm followed by distal contact of 69.5 (19.2) µm and occlusal contact of 115.9 (27.7) µm in the LSB group ( < 0.001). The direct data capture groups are closer to the ideal proximal and occlusal contacts for single implant crowns than the indirect data capture groups. There was no difference in the accuracy between the two types of scan body (SSB and LSB).

Citing Articles

Direct vs. Indirect Digital Implant Impressions: A Time and Cost Analysis.

Sampaio-Fernandes M, Pinto R, Almeida P, Sampaio-Fernandes M, Silva Marques D, Figueiral M Dent J (Basel). 2024; 12(11).

PMID: 39590390 PMC: 11592489. DOI: 10.3390/dj12110340.


Trueness of Extraoral Digital Impressions for Full-Arch Implant Impressions-In Vitro Study.

Sampaio-Fernandes M, Pinto R, Almeida P, Sampaio-Fernandes M, Marques D, Figueiral M Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(12).

PMID: 38930301 PMC: 11205813. DOI: 10.3390/ma17122932.


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.


Clinical Outcome of Fully Digital Workflow for Single-Implant-Supported Crowns: A Retrospective Clinical Study.

Gianfreda F, Pesce P, Marcano E, Pistilli V, Bollero P, Canullo L Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10(8).

PMID: 36005237 PMC: 9406321. DOI: 10.3390/dj10080139.


Correlation between the data quality of digital impressions and surface topography of prepared teeth.

Turkyilmaz I, Yun S, Wilkins G, Benli M J Dent Sci. 2022; 17(1):583-585.

PMID: 35028090 PMC: 8739252. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2021.06.012.

References
1.
Boyarsky H, Loos L, Leknius C . Occlusal refinement of mounted casts before crown fabrication to decrease clinical time required to adjust occlusion. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 82(5):591-4. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70059-4. View

2.
Hamza T, Ezzat H, El-Hossary M, Katamish H, Shokry T, Rosenstiel S . Accuracy of ceramic restorations made with two CAD/CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109(2):83-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60020-7. View

3.
Johnson G, Craig R . Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and a repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53(4):484-90. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90630-4. View

4.
Inchingolo F, Tatullo M, Abenavoli F, Marrelli M, Inchingolo A, Palladino A . Oral piercing and oral diseases: a short time retrospective study. Int J Med Sci. 2011; 8(8):649-52. PMC: 3204433. DOI: 10.7150/ijms.8.649. View

5.
Schneider A, Kurtzman G, Silverstein L . Improving implant framework passive fit and accuracy through the use of verification stents and casts. J Dent Technol. 2002; 18(4):23-5. View