IADR Abstract Archives
Evaluation of The Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Implant Impression Techniques in Bilateral Distal Extension Cases.
Objectives: Objective; To compare the accuracy of conventional and digital implant level impression techniques using three-dimensional superimposition analysis for partially edentulous patients.
Methods: Methods; Eight patients who had missing all mandibular posterior teeth except first premolars were included in this study. In each patient, 4 implants were placed, 2 in each side to support 3 units screw retained zirconia restorations. Three months after implant placement, each patient underwent two implant level impression techniques (n=8) for each technique: Conventional implant impressions CII (pick-up, splinted transfer), and digital implant impressions DII were taken with TRIOS 3 Shape intraoral optical scanner (IOS). After multiple verification procedures, master models obtained from conventional impressions were digitized using laboratory scanner. Standard tessellation language (STL) datasets obtained from conventional and digital workflow were imported to reverse engineering software (Geomagic control X,version 2018.1.1). Best fit algorithm was used for surface superimpositions, to assess the three-dimensional deviations of scan bodies in color coding map in µm. Inter-implant distances between centers of scan bodies were recorded in mm. Data were collected and statistically analyzed using independent t-test.
Results: Results; For conventional impressions, the mean differences of inter-implant distances for right and left side were 15.83± 2.59 mm and 14.45 ±1.46 mm respectively, while for digital impressions were 15.74 ±2.59 mm and 14.37 ±1.55 mm respectively. Mean of 3D deviation of scan bodies comparing CII and DII was13 ±0.02 µm. There is no significant differences were detected between them (P≥ 0.05).
Conclusions: Conclusion; Within the limitations of this study, there is no significant difference in the accuracy between conventional and digital implant impressions.
Methods: Methods; Eight patients who had missing all mandibular posterior teeth except first premolars were included in this study. In each patient, 4 implants were placed, 2 in each side to support 3 units screw retained zirconia restorations. Three months after implant placement, each patient underwent two implant level impression techniques (n=8) for each technique: Conventional implant impressions CII (pick-up, splinted transfer), and digital implant impressions DII were taken with TRIOS 3 Shape intraoral optical scanner (IOS). After multiple verification procedures, master models obtained from conventional impressions were digitized using laboratory scanner. Standard tessellation language (STL) datasets obtained from conventional and digital workflow were imported to reverse engineering software (Geomagic control X,version 2018.1.1). Best fit algorithm was used for surface superimpositions, to assess the three-dimensional deviations of scan bodies in color coding map in µm. Inter-implant distances between centers of scan bodies were recorded in mm. Data were collected and statistically analyzed using independent t-test.
Results: Results; For conventional impressions, the mean differences of inter-implant distances for right and left side were 15.83± 2.59 mm and 14.45 ±1.46 mm respectively, while for digital impressions were 15.74 ±2.59 mm and 14.37 ±1.55 mm respectively. Mean of 3D deviation of scan bodies comparing CII and DII was13 ±0.02 µm. There is no significant differences were detected between them (P≥ 0.05).
Conclusions: Conclusion; Within the limitations of this study, there is no significant difference in the accuracy between conventional and digital implant impressions.