IADR Abstract Archives
Accuracy Of 3-unit Fixed Implant Prosthesis Impressions Conventional Versus Digital
Objectives: An accurate impression of the intraoral spatial orientation of implants is essential to fabricate an accurate master cast. Several clinical and laboratory variables may affect the accuracy of an implant cast. The introduction of intraoral scanners and the use of computer-aided impression making, is claimed to yield scans with an accuracy level that surpasses that of conventional impressions. However, there is a lack of studies comparing conventional to digital impression making in implant cases. Therefore, the goal of the present in vitro investigation was to investigate the accuracy of implant conventional and computer-aided impressions.
Methods: One reference model (resin, left maxillary quadrant) incorporating two implant analogs in the areas of #12 and #14 with pontic area #13 was fabricated. This reference model was digitized with a highly accurate industrial reference scanner as well as with the CEREC AC with Bluecam (Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, Bensheim, Germany), the True Definition Scanner (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and the iTero (Align Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), both with a 3 mm (n=5) and an 8 mm (n=5) impression abutment. Conventional splinted and non-splinted impressions (polyether) were also made and the casts were poured the conventional way and utilizing Robocast technology (Biomet 3i, Florida, USA). All casts where then scanned with the reference scanner as well. The obtained files were loaded into 3D evaluation software Geomagic Qualify (Geomagic, Morrisville, USA) for the comparison process. Deviations between datasets obtained from the reference scan, the different intraoral scanners, and the conventional approach (trueness) as well as deviations between datasets obtained from the same scanner and the conventional approach (precision) were calculated and statistically analyzed.
Results: At the time of submission, the present study was still in progress and the final results will be presented at the conference.
Conclusions: N/A
Methods: One reference model (resin, left maxillary quadrant) incorporating two implant analogs in the areas of #12 and #14 with pontic area #13 was fabricated. This reference model was digitized with a highly accurate industrial reference scanner as well as with the CEREC AC with Bluecam (Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, Bensheim, Germany), the True Definition Scanner (3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) and the iTero (Align Technology, Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), both with a 3 mm (n=5) and an 8 mm (n=5) impression abutment. Conventional splinted and non-splinted impressions (polyether) were also made and the casts were poured the conventional way and utilizing Robocast technology (Biomet 3i, Florida, USA). All casts where then scanned with the reference scanner as well. The obtained files were loaded into 3D evaluation software Geomagic Qualify (Geomagic, Morrisville, USA) for the comparison process. Deviations between datasets obtained from the reference scan, the different intraoral scanners, and the conventional approach (trueness) as well as deviations between datasets obtained from the same scanner and the conventional approach (precision) were calculated and statistically analyzed.
Results: At the time of submission, the present study was still in progress and the final results will be presented at the conference.
Conclusions: N/A
IMAGES
2115251_File000000.jpg
2115251_File000000.jpg