![]() Errors caused by the displacement of different components can accumulate rapidly when multiple implants are involved. Ĭompared to tooth preparations, dental implants are more challenging to take an accurate impression. Therefore, intra-oral scanners are a valid alternative to conventional impressions for partial arches, but still challenging for complete-arch impressions, although some devices have shown comparable results. However, the accuracy is inversely proportional to the size of the area to be scanned. This improves the precision, reduces the treatment time, and finally leads to a better fit of the restoration compared to conventional impressions. In prosthodontics, intra-oral scanning has simplified the impression procedure by reducing the number of production steps. It is routinely used for the fabrication of crown and bridges, but can also be used to plan surgeries such as cleft palate or other jaw surgeries virtually. ![]() Over the years, various applications of this data acquisition system were developed in different aspects of dentistry. The introduction of Cad-Cam technology has made it possible to scan and create a 3D digital image of a tooth preparation or implant, which can be used to design and fabricate a restoration. Overall, abutment level impressions were more accurate compared to implant level impressions. Conclusions: Digital impressions for full-arch implant supported prostheses can be as accurate as conventional impressions, depending on the intra-oral scanner and software. For the abutment-level model, PS52 also performed significantly better than all other impressions, except for the coronal trueness and precision of A ( p = 1.000). Results: For the implant-level model, PS52 performed significantly better in terms of trueness and precision compared to all other impressions, except for the angular trueness of A ( p = 0.072) and the coronal trueness of PS51 ( p = 1.000). Angular and coronal measurements per implant were considered for trueness and precision. For all scans, the position of the implants was calculated and matched with the reference scan. A coordinate machine (Atos, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany) was used to generate the reference scan of both casts. Additionally, conventional impressions (A) were made, poured in gypsum, and digitized using a lab scanner (IScan D104i). ![]() Methods: One resin cast with six implants and another cast with six abutments were scanned with Primescan v5.1 (PS51), Primescan v5.2 (PS52), Trios 3 (T3), and Trios 4 (T4). The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions when compared to conventional impressions, when performed on the abutment or implant level.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |