In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems

Jaime Orejas-Perez; Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez; Ignacio Ortiz-Collado; Israel J. Thuissard; Andrea Santamaria-Laorden

doi:10.3390/ijerph19074300

In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems

Jaime Orejas-Perez, Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez, Ignacio Ortiz-Collado, Israel J. Thuissard, Andrea Santamaria-Laorden^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

(1) Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. (2) A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student’s t-test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). (3) Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.

Original language	English
Article number	4300
Pages (from-to)	1-17
Number of pages	17
Journal	International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Volume	19
Issue number	7
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19074300
Publication status	Published - 1 Apr 2022

Bibliographical note

Special Issue: Advances of Digital Dentistry and Prosthodontics.

Funding Information:
The authors thank MPI (Medical Precision Implants) for their materials, in terms of implant components, the DENTALMILL laboratory for their CAD/CAM supports, and Cristina Andreu for their help in preparing the formal analysis.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. All rights reserved.

Funding

The authors thank MPI (Medical Precision Implants) for their materials, in terms of implant components, the DENTALMILL laboratory for their CAD/CAM supports, and Cristina Andreu for their help in preparing the formal analysis.

Keywords

complete arch
dental implants
edentulous
intraoral scanners
optical impression
precision

Access to Document

10.3390/ijerph19074300

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{7e1bb482f4734f08a8b58fb6d5c3a3be,

title = "In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems",

abstract = "(1) Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. (2) A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student{\textquoteright}s t-test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). (3) Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.",

keywords = "complete arch, dental implants, edentulous, intraoral scanners, optical impression, precision",

author = "Jaime Orejas-Perez and Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez and Ignacio Ortiz-Collado and Thuissard, \{Israel J.\} and Andrea Santamaria-Laorden",

note = "Special Issue: Advances of Digital Dentistry and Prosthodontics. Funding Information: The authors thank MPI (Medical Precision Implants) for their materials, in terms of implant components, the DENTALMILL laboratory for their CAD/CAM supports, and Cristina Andreu for their help in preparing the formal analysis. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022, Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. All rights reserved.",

year = "2022",

month = apr,

day = "1",

doi = "10.3390/ijerph19074300",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

pages = "1--17",

journal = "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health",

issn = "1661-7827",

publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",

number = "7",

}

In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems. / Orejas-Perez, Jaime; Gimenez-Gonzalez, Beatriz; Ortiz-Collado, Ignacio et al.
In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 19, No. 7, 4300, 01.04.2022, p. 1-17.

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions

T2 - Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems

AU - Orejas-Perez, Jaime

AU - Gimenez-Gonzalez, Beatriz

AU - Ortiz-Collado, Ignacio

AU - Thuissard, Israel J.

AU - Santamaria-Laorden, Andrea

N1 - Special Issue: Advances of Digital Dentistry and Prosthodontics. Funding Information: The authors thank MPI (Medical Precision Implants) for their materials, in terms of implant components, the DENTALMILL laboratory for their CAD/CAM supports, and Cristina Andreu for their help in preparing the formal analysis. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. All rights reserved.

PY - 2022/4/1

Y1 - 2022/4/1

N2 - (1) Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. (2) A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student’s t-test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). (3) Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.

AB - (1) Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. (2) A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student’s t-test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). (3) Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.

KW - complete arch

KW - dental implants

KW - edentulous

KW - intraoral scanners

KW - optical impression

KW - precision

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85127399634

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85127399634&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3390/ijerph19074300

DO - 10.3390/ijerph19074300

M3 - Article

C2 - 35409985

AN - SCOPUS:85127399634

SN - 1661-7827

VL - 19

SP - 1

EP - 17

JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

IS - 7

M1 - 4300

ER -

In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this