Positional accuracy of a single implant analog in additively manufactured casts in biobased model resin.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the positional accuracy of implant analogs in biobased model resin by comparing them to that of implant analogs in model resin casts and conventional analogs in dental stone casts. METHODS: Polyvinylsiloxane impressions of a partially edentulous mandibular model with a single implant were made and poured in type IV dental stone. The same model was also digitized with an intraoral scanner and additively manufactured implant casts were fabricated in biobased model resin (FotoDent biobased model) and model resin (FotoDent model 2 beige-opaque) (n = 8). All casts and the model were digitized with a laboratory scanner, and the scan files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Control X). The linear deviations of 2 standardized points on the scan body used during digitization were automatically calculated on x-, y-, and z-axes. Average deviations were used to define precision, and 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Biobased model resin led to higher deviations than dental stone (all axes, P ≤ 0.031) and model resin (y-axis, P = 0.015). Biobased model resin resulted in the lowest precision of implant analog position (P ≤ 0.049). The difference in the positional accuracy of implant analogs of model resin and stone casts was nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.196). CONCLUSIONS: Implant analogs in biobased model resin casts mostly had lower positional accuracy, whereas those in model resin and stone casts had similar positional accuracy. Regardless of the material, analogs deviated more towards mesial, while buccal deviations in additively manufactured casts and lingual deviations in stone casts were more prominent.

Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: This in vitro study compared the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for angulated and straight implants using two different impression coping and scan body designs. METHODS: Two implant systems were used: Straumann and Dentegris. Two implants were placed for each system, straight and angulated at 15 degrees mesiodistally. Conventional impressions were made using the splinted open-tray technique using narrow impression coping (NIC) and wide impression coping (WIC). The stone casts produced from the conventional impression were digitized with a lab scanner (3Shape D2000). Digital impressions were made using four intraoral scanners (IOS): 3Shape Trios 3, Medit i700, Cerec Omnicam, and Emerald Planmeca using short scanbodies (SSB) and long scanbodies (LSB). The scanning was repeated ten times to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The distance and angle deviations between impression copings and scanbodies were measured in reference to the master model. RESULTS: The trueness and precision of SSB and WIC were significantly better than LSB and NIC (p<0.001). The range trueness of the platform deviation was better with SSB (37.1 to 51.9) than LSB (89.6 to 127.9 µm) and for WIC than NIC in conventional impressions (58.2 and 75.1 µm, respectively). The trueness of the angle deviation of digital scans with SSB (0.11 to 0.25 degrees) was significantly better than scans with LSB (0.31 to 0.57 degrees) and for WIC than NIC (0.21 and 0.52 degrees, respectively). The precision of the platform deviation of digital scans with SSB (12.4 to 34.5 µm) was higher than other scans and conventional impressions (42.9 to 71.4 µm). The precision of the angle deviation of Medit i700 and Trios 3 with SSB (0.17 and 0.20 degrees, respectively) was higher than other scans with SSB and conventional impressions (0.54 to 1.63 degrees). CONCLUSIONS: Digital scans with SSB were more accurate than conventional splinted open-tray impressions. The type of impression coping and scanbody significantly affected the impression accuracy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of a short scanbody can increase the accuracy of digital impressions, and wide impression coping can increase the accuracy of conventional impressions, resulting in improved clinical outcomes.

Assessment of dimensional stability of novel VPES impression material at different time intervals with standard disinfectants.

BACKGROUND: Vinyl polyether silicone (VPES) is a novel impression biomaterial made of a combination of vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) and polyether (PE). Thus, it is significant to assess its properties and behaviour under varied disinfectant test conditions. This study aimed to assess the dimensional stability of novel VPES impression material after immersion in standard disinfectants for different time intervals. METHODS: Elastomeric impression material used -medium body regular set (Monophase) [Exa'lence GC America]. A total of 84 Specimens were fabricated using stainless steel die and ring (ADA specification 19). These samples were distributed into a control group (n=12) and a test group (n=72). The test group was divided into 3 groups, based on the type of disinfectant used - Group-A- 2% Glutaraldehyde, Group-B- 0. 5% Sodium hypochlorite and Group-C- 2% Chlorhexidine each test group was further divided into 2 subgroups (n=12/subgroup) based on time intervals for which each sample was immersed in the disinfectants - subgroup-1- 10 mins and Subgroup 2- 30 mins. After the impression material was set, it was removed from the ring and then it was washed in water for 15 seconds. Control group measurements were made immediately on a stereomicroscope and other samples were immersed in the three disinfection solutions for 10 mins and 30 mins to check the dimensional stability by measuring the distance between the lines generated by the stainless steel die on the samples using a stereomicroscope at x40 magnification. RESULTS: The distance measured in the control group was 4397.2078 µm and 4396.1571 µm; for the test group Group-A- 2% Glutaraldehyde was 4396.4075 µm and 4394.5992 µm; Group-B- 0. 5% Sodium hypochlorite was 4394.5453 µm and 4389.4711 µm Group-C- 2% Chlorhexidine was 4395.2953 µm and 4387.1703 µm respectively for 10 mins and 30 mins. Percentage dimensional change was in the range of 0.02 - 0.25 for all the groups for 10 mins and 30 mins. CONCLUSIONS: 2 % Glutaraldehyde is the most suitable disinfectant for VPES elastomeric impression material in terms of dimensional stability and shows minimum dimensional changes as compared to that of 2% Chlorhexidine and 0.5% Sodium hypochlorite.

Digital Evaluation of Trueness and Precision of Modern Impression Materials in Implant- Retained Mandibular Overdentures.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the dimensional accuracy, trueness, and precision of vinyl siloxane ether (VSXE) and polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impression materials using different impression techniques. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A three-dimensional (3D) printed mandibular model with implants and metal rods served as the reference model. Impressions were taken in custom trays, resulting in four groups: PVS-closed-tray, VSXE-closed-tray, PVS-open-tray, and VSXE-open-tray. The reference model and impressions were scanned and analyzed using 3D analysis software to assess the trueness and precision within each group. RESULTS: There was significant difference in trueness between the groups, with PVS closed tray showing a higher deviation than VSXE-closed-tray and PVS-open-tray. VSXE-open-tray had the lowest deviation, which was statistically significant. In terms of precision, PVS-closed-tray showed the highest deviation, while no significant differences were found among the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: VSXE impression material with an open tray technique consistently demonstrated the highest levels of accuracy and precision. Conversely, PVS impression material with a closed tray technique yielded less favorable results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Better understanding of trueness and precision of new impression materials with new impression techniques will increase their clinical effectiveness.

Evaluation of the effect of chemical disinfection and ultraviolet disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material: an in-vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Various methods, chemical and physical, disinfect dental impressions. Common chemicals include 1% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde, while UV radiation is a prevalent physical method. Few studies compare their effects on dimensional stability in polyether impressions. This study aims to assess such stability using different disinfection methods. Therefore, this study was planned to evaluate the dimensional stability of polyether impression material using different disinfection methods. METHODS: This in vitro study compared the effects of chemical disinfectants (1% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde) and UV irradiation on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material. Groups A, B, C, and D, each with ten samples (N = 10), were studied. Group A was untreated (control). Group B was treated with 2% glutaraldehyde for 20 min, Group C with 1% Sodium Hypochlorite for 20 min, and Group D with UV rays for 20 min. A pilot milling machine drill was used to make four parallel holes labeled A, B, C, and D in the anterior and premolar regions from right to left. After sequential drilling, four implant analogs were positioned using a surveyor for accuracy. Ten open-tray polyether impressions were made and treated as described in the groups, followed by pouring the corresponding casts. Distortion values for each disinfection method were measured using a coordinate measuring machine capable of recording on the X- and Y-axes. RESULTS: A comprehensive analysis was conducted using the one-way ANOVA test for distinct groups labeled A, B, C, and D, revealing significant differences in the mean distances for X1, X2, X4, X5, and X6 among the groups, with p-values ranging from 0.001 to 0.000. However, no significant differences were observed in X3. Notably, mean distances for the Y variables exhibited substantial differences among the groups, emphasizing parameter variations, with p-values ranging from 0.000 to 0.033. The results compared the four groups using the one-way ANOVA test, revealing statistically significant distance differences for most X and Y variables, except for X3 and Y4. Similarly, post-hoc Tukey's tests provided specific pairwise comparisons, underlining the distinctions between group C and the others in the mean and deviation distances for various variables on both the X- and Y-axes. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that disinfection with 1% sodium hypochlorite or UV rays for 20 min maintained dimensional stability in polyether impressions.

A comparative in vitro analysis of various temporization materials with respect to pulp chamber temperature changes during polymerization.

AIM: (1) To compare the temperature rise in the pulp chamber with different resin materials used for making provisional fixed partial dentures in anterior and posterior region while using Polyvinylsiloxane impression materials as matrix. (2) To identify a superior provisionalization material based on the amount of heat dissipated suitable for anterior and posterior provisional fixed partial denture fabrication. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Temporary crowns and bridges are integral to Fixed Prosthodontics. It has been observed that conventional fixed prosthesis temporisation materials release heat due to the exothermic polymerisation reaction. When such a provisional material is directly let to set on a vital tooth, the heat transfer causes irreversible changes in the pulp tissue depending of the degree of change. Hence, this study observes amount of heat generation in various materials during temporisation procedure, by simulating similar conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two Models were fabricated, one simulating missing lateral incisor (Model A) and another simulating missing first molar (Model B). Intact maxillary central incisors and canine for Model A and intact mandibular Second Premolar and Second Molar were selected to act as abutments. These abutment teeth were fitted with the tip of a K-type Thermocouple inside their pulp chambers and these were connected to a digital thermometer. Five temporisation materials were chosen for fabrication of temporary crowns through Direct technique. (1) polymethy methacrylate (Self Cure acrylic), (2) bisacryl composite (Protemp 4), (3) visible light cure urethane dimethacrylate (Revotec LC), (4) barium glass and fumed silica infused methacrylate (Dentsply Integrity) and (5)nano-hybrid composite (VOCO Structur 3). Ten observations were made for each provisional material on each model. During each observation, temperature rise was recorded at 30s interval from the time of application, through the peak and till a decrease in temperature is observed. Polyvinyl siloxane was used as matrix for all except light cure resin, where polypropylene sheet was used. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Anova test used for statistical. RESULTS: ANOVA test revealed that there was a significant difference in the temperature changes associated with the provisional restorative materials used. Among the five, polymethy methacrylate (self cure resin) showed the maximum rise in temperature, followed by bisacryl composite (Protemp 4), visible light cure urethane dimethacrylate (Revotec LC), barium glass and fumed silica infused methacrylate (Dentsply Integrity) and nano-hybrid composite (VOCO Structur 3). There was no comparable difference between Model A and B but an overall reduction of temperature rise was observed in model B. CONCLUSION: VOCO Structur 3 showed the least temperature rise in the pulp chamber, and overall temperature rise was less for model B which can be attributed to the residual dentin thickness.

Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions-An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of including the palate and the number of images recorded during intraoral digital scanning procedure on the accuracy of complete arch scans. METHODS: An experienced operator conducted 40 digital scans of a 3D printed maxillary model and divided them into two groups: 20 with inclusion of the palate (PAL) and 20 without (NPAL). Each set of scans was performed using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios 5; 3Shape A/S; Copenhagen, Denmark). The resulting STL files were imported into the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for accuracy comparison. A reference STL file was created using a 3Shape E3 laboratory scanner (3Shape Scanlt Dental 2.2.1.0; Copenhagen, Denmark). The number of images captured was recorded during the scanning procedure. RESULTS: In the case of the right side no statistically significant difference in trueness was detected (84 µm ± 45.6 for PAL and 80.4 ± 40.4 µm for NPAL). In the case of the left side no significant difference in trueness was observed (215.1 ± 70.2 µm for PAL and 233.9 ± 70.7 µm for NPAL). In the case of the arch distortion a statistically significant difference in trueness was seen between the two types of scans (135.3 ± 71.9 µm for PAL and 380.4 ± 255.1 µm for NPAL). The average number of images was 831.25, and 593.8 for PAL and NPAL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Scanning of the palatal area can significantly improve the accuracy of dental scans in cases of complete arches. In terms of the number of images, based on the current results, obvious conclusions could not be drawn, and further investigation is required. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Scanning the palate may be beneficial for improving the accuracy of intraoral scans in dentate patients. Consequently, this should be linked to an appropriate scanning strategy that predicts palatal scanning.

In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch conventional implant impressions using two different materials (A-silicone and polyether) to full-arch digital implant impressions produced from two intraoral scanning devices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model was fabricated representing an edentulous mandible with four implants with internal connection placed at the sites of canines and first molars. The anterior implants were parallel to the residual ridge, while the two posterior implants had an angulation of 15° to the distal and 15° to the lingual respectively. The conventional technique was performed with open-tray of non-splinted impression copings. Two different impression materials were used, A-silicone and polyether at monophase medium body consistencies. The digital impressions were obtained with the use of two different intraoral scanners, after the connection of scan bodies. A total of 10 impressions were produced for each of the four experimental groups. The conventional models as well as the master model were digitized using a high-resolution laboratory scanner. The STL files of the models and of the intraoral impressions were imported in a powerful superimposition software, for the conduction of measurements in pairs of files. The software calculated the 3D deviations, as well as the linear and angular displacements among scan bodies at the digital files. For "trueness" measurements every STL file of each experimental group was superimposed to the digital master model, while for "precision" measurements all STL files of each experimental group were superimposed to each other. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of full arch mandibular implant impressions was influenced both by the impression technique used (conventional vs. digital) and the impression material used (A-silicone vs. polyether) or the intraoral scanner used (Trios vs. Heron). In terms of "trueness," A-silicone showed the highest impression accuracy with the lowest deviation values, followed by polyether and Trios, but the differences between the three groups were in the majority not statistically significant. Heron showed statistically lower accuracy results in all measurements compared to the other groups. In terms of "precision", conventional impressions with the use of A-Silicone or polyether were statistically significantly superior to digital impressions with either scanner. A-Silicone and polyether showed no statistically significant difference between them.

Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of intraoral scanning coverage (IOSC) on digital implant impression accuracy in various partially edentulous situations and predict the optimal IOSC. METHODS: Five types of resin models were fabricated, each simulating single or multiple tooth loss scenarios with inserted implants and scan bodies. IOSC was subgrouped to cover two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve teeth, as well as full arch. Each group underwent ten scans. A desktop scanner served as the reference. Accuracy was evaluated by measuring the Root mean square error (RMSE) values of scan bodies. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to predict the optimal IOSC with different edentulous situations. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. RESULTS: For single-tooth-missing situations, in anterior sites, significantly better accuracy was observed in groups with IOSC ranging from four teeth to full arch (p < 0.05). In premolar sites, IOSC spanning four to six teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05), while in molar sites, groups with IOSC encompassing two to eight teeth exhibited better accuracy (p < 0.05). For multiple-teeth-missing situations, IOSC covering four, six, and eight teeth, as well as full arch showed better accuracy in anterior gaps (p < 0.05). In posterior gaps, IOSC of two, four, six or eight teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05). The CNN predicted distinct optimal IOSC for different edentulous scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Implant impression accuracy can be significantly impacted by IOSC in different partially edentulous situations. The selection of IOSC should be customized to the specific dentition defect condition. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The number of teeth scanned can significantly affect digital implant impression accuracy. For missing single or four anterior teeth, scan at least four or six neighboring teeth is acceptable. In lateral cases, two neighboring teeth may suffice, but extending over ten teeth, including contralateral side, might deteriorate the scan.

Precision Matters: The Evolution of Impression Systems and Materials.

The clinical success of indirect restorations is directly correlated with their specific anatomic shape and design as well as marginal accuracy and overall precision of fit. These factors require a precise impression of the preparation and, to the extent necessary and possible, other teeth and supporting hard and soft tissues.

Accuracy of Silicone Impressions and Stone Models Using Two Laboratory Scanners: A 3D Evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the in vitro accuracy of impressions obtained with two silicone and corresponding stone models using two laboratory scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model with synthetic resin teeth with two single-unit crown preparations was created and scanned using a 12-megapixel scanner. Five conventional impressions of the physical model were prepared with different silicone impression systems (Zhermack and Coltene) using the double-mix technique and poured with gypsum. The impressions and stone models obtained were scanned using two extraoral scanning systems (Identica T500, Medit; S600 ARTI, Zirkonzahn). All best-fit superimpositions of the teeth areas were conducted between the master model and the scans of the impressions and models obtained with the two scanners. A P < .05 level was considered significant. RESULTS: The Identica T500 Medit scanner showed an accuracy of 102.34 (89.67, 115.01) µm for Coltene silicone and 79.51 (67.82, 91.21) µm for Zhermack silicone, while the S600 ARTI Zirkonzhan scanner presented 110.79 (98.24, 123.33) µm and 91.91 (81.29, 102.54) µm, respectively, with significant differences between scanners for Zhermack silicone (P = .008) and for the corresponding stone models (P = .002). Zhermack silicone presented overall discrepancies lower than Coltene silicone, with statistically significant differences in both scanners analyzed (P < .001; P = .017). However, the discrepancies found were within clinically acceptable values. With the Zirkonzahn scanner, discrepancies found in the Zhermack impressions were lower than in the corresponding stone models (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The direct digitization of silicone impressions with laboratory scanners presented comparable results to conventional techniques with stone models.

A Comparative Evaluation of Three Methods of Disinfection of Gypsum Casts and the Changes in Surface Roughness and Dimensional Accuracy after Disinfection-An Ex Vivo Study.

BACKGROUND: One of the major problems of everyday dental practice is cross-contamination. It can place office personnel, dentists, and patients at risk of acquiring serious illness. Disinfection helps in controlling this cross-contamination to an extent. The evaluation was done to find the efficient disinfection method on gypsum casts. AIMS: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the efficacy of three methods of disinfection of gypsum casts, namely, chemical disinfection by immersion, spray method, and microwave method, and also to evaluate and compare changes in surface roughness and dimensional accuracy between the three methods after disinfection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ex vivo and experimental study. Thirty participants were selected, and impressions of the maxillary arch were made using polyvinyl siloxane impression material. Ninety type IV die stone gypsum casts were poured. It was divided into three groups and was subjected to chemical disinfection by immersion and spray methods, and microwave method. The disinfected casts were evaluated for microbial growth, surface roughness, and dimensional accuracy. It was performed by using the one-way analysis of variance test and paired t-test followed by the Kruskal - Wallis test and Wilcoxon signed rank test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Microwave disinfection was more effective than both immersion and spray chemical disinfection methods (P < 0.010 and <0.001). The surface roughness of the microwave-irradiated casts had significantly increased after disinfection. However, there were no significant dimensional changes by any of the methods of disinfection. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the study, the microwave method of disinfection is more effective in eradicating microorganisms when compared to chemical methods of disinfection by immersion and spray methods.

Clinical comparative study on the accuracy of palatal rugae in models obtained by different impression materials and intraoral scanning.

OBJECTIVE: Palatal rugae are frequently used in the evaluation of tooth movement after treatment in orthodontics and as a stable region in superimposition. It is important to note that the impression method and material used to record the rugae region affect the accuracy of the impression. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of palatal rugae, in three-dimensional (3D) by employing both conventional and digital impression methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, 22 patients (12 females, 10 males) mean age of 13.5 ± 1.7 years old were selected with complete permanent dentition. Three different impressions were taken from the maxillae of the patients: conventional impression using silicone rubber impression material, conventional impression using alginate impression material, and optical impression using an intraoral scanner. The impressions' digital data were analyzed by the GOM Inspect (Version 2018, Braunschweig, Germany), a 3D analysis software. The Root Mean Square (RMS) values of the total ruga region were evaluated in this software. The data were statistically analyzed using the Jamovi program. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were performed due to the non-normal distribution of the data. RESULTS: There is no statistically significant difference between the comparison points of the right and left rugae's medial and lateral points and total rugae regions' RMS values. Although there was no statistically significant difference, the total RMS values of alginate and digital scan measurements showed closer results than the RMS values of silicone and digital scan measurements. CONCLUSION: The study found that there was no statistically significant difference in the total RMS values of the ruga region between traditional and digital impression methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The treatment period in orthodontics is long. Different impression materials and methods can be used for diagnostic, mid-treatment, and final impressions. For superimpositions and treatment and post-treatment palatal ruga evaluations, traditional and digital impression methods are clinically acceptable and can be used as alternatives to each other.

Effect of Tooth Mobility on the Accuracy of Conventional Impressions: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To study the influence of tooth mobility on the accuracy of conventional impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 10 patients with mobile anterior teeth and 10 healthy patients were treated with conventional impressions and intraoral digital impressions. The digital impression group was recorded as standard data, the mobile teeth group was recorded as the experimental group, and the healthy anterior teeth group was recorded as the control group. We imported digital impression and irreversible hydrocolloid impression files into Geomagic Wrap and marked reference points to execute N-point alignment, then we recorded the coordinates. Paired-samples t test was used to analyze whether the point coordinates of mobile teeth were statistically significant (a = .05). One-way ANOVA was used to analyze whether there was a relationship between coordinate differences and tooth mobility in the distal, coronal, and buccal directions (a = .05). RESULTS: In the buccal and coronal directions, the difference was statistically significant between the conventional and digital impression groups. In the buccal direction, the accuracy differences of I-degree and II-degree mobile teeth were 0.149 mm and 0.401 mm, respectively. In the coronal direction, the differences were 0.128 mm and 0.233 mm, respectively. Meanwhile, ANOVA analysis showed that there was a relationship between point coordinate difference and tooth mobility in the buccal and coronal directions. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional impressions can influence the accuracy of mobile tooth impressions. Therefore, digital impressions should be adopted for mobile teeth impressions.

Accuracy of impression methods through the comparison of 3D deviation between implant fixtures.

AIM: To compare the accuracy of three impression methods by comparing the distance between the reference points of the implant fixture, especially in curved maxillary anterior teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Implant fixtures were placed in the maxillary central incisor and canine regions. A maxillary master cast was made using a model scanner and 3D printer. Ten impressions were taken from the three experimental groups constructed (group P: pick-up impression coping; group I: scan body with an intraoral scanner; group B: bite impression coping). The distance between the reference points, the angle between the scan bodies, and displacement of the 3D surface area were measured. RESULTS: The distances between the reference points were significantly different between groups I and B in the maxillary incisors, and between group P and the other two groups in the maxillary canines. Group P had the least amount of displacement in both fixtures. Both fixtures showed the highest displacement in group B. Displacement of the 3D surface area in the maxillary incisors showed no significant difference between the groups. There was a significant difference in the maxillary canines between groups P and I. CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, all three implant impression methods showed changes in the position and angle of the fixture compared with the master cast. The highest accuracy was shown by the impression method using the pick-up impression coping, but the impression method using the intraoral scanner also showed clinically acceptable accuracy. It should be noted that errors may occur when taking impressions using a bite impression coping.

Comparison of 3D positional accuracy of implant analogs in printed resin models versus conventional stone casts: Effect of implant angulation.

PURPOSE: To study the effect of implant angulation on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in printed resin models and conventional stone casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three sectional master models with two implants with total inter-implant angulations of 0°, 10°, and 20° were fabricated. For each master model, five conventional stone casts (CS) and printed resin models (PM) were fabricated (n = 5). Test models were made with nonsplinted impression copings and open tray polyether impressions for the CS groups and scan bodies scanned using an intraoral scanner for the PM groups. The physical positions of the implants and implant analogs were measured with a coordinate measuring machine. 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D positional accuracy of the analogs in the test models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyze data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Mean ΔR was significantly greater for PM10 (73.5 ± 8.9 µm) and PM20 (65.5 ± 33.3 µm) compared to CS0 (16.8 ± 14.1 µm), CS10 (22.2 ± 13.0 µm), CS20 (15.6 ± 19.9 µm), and PM0 (23.9 ± 16.1 µm). For Absdθ, there were no significant differences between test groups. CONCLUSIONS: With conventional stone casts, implant angulation had no significant effect on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions. Amongst printed resin models test groups, angulated implants had significantly greater ΔR. Amongst angulated implants test groups, printed resin models had significantly greater ΔR than conventional stone casts. Compared to the master model, all test groups, regardless of inter-implant angulation, produced greater inter-analog distances.

3D Accuracy of a Conventional Method Versus Three Digital Scanning Strategies for Completely Edentulous Maxillary Implant Impressions.

PURPOSE: To compare the 3D accuracy of three scanning strategies and conventional impressions using an edentulous model with six implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An edentulous maxillary master model was fabricated with six equigingival internal connection implants at 0 degrees of angulation. Ten conventional open-tray splinted implant-level impressions were made and poured in stone. A master model and conventional casts were digitized with a reference scanner. Digital impressions were made by calibrated clinicians with a TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner ([IOS] 3Shape) according to three scanning strategies: DIG1 (occlusal-palatal-lingual), DIG2 (S-type motion from buccal to palatal), and DIG3 (scanning two half arches and connecting them at the midline). Each technique was repeated 10 times on the master model. Deviations from the STL datasets (N = 40) were compared to those of the reference master model using the Hexagon Metrology software system PC-DMIS CAD++. Linear distortions (dX, dY, dZ), global linear distortion (dR), and angular distortions (Absdθx, Absdθy) were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis test and mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to compare the original and binary distortion measures between the techniques. RESULTS: The mean dR ranged from 91 µm (conventional method) to 183 µm (DIG1). The mean angular distortion ranged from 0.20 degrees (Absdθx for DIG2) to 0.69 degrees (Absdθy for DIG3). No scan pattern resulted in a more accurate reproduction in any of the measured parameters than the conventional impression method. There were significant differences between the methods for all distortion measures. CONCLUSIONS: No group reproduced the 3D position of the six-implant master model below the thresholds for both global linear and angular distortions. All the digital strategies tested were less accurate than the conventional open-tray splinted implant-level impression technique.

Chairside 3-D printed impression trays: a new approach to increase the accuracy of conventional implant impression taking? An in vitro study.

PURPOSE: A high transfer accuracy of the intraoral implant position to a model is required, to manufacture implant-supported restorations. However, clinically relevant deviations persist between the intraoral implant position and the model obtained, even for the benchmark conventional custom implant impressions with polyether. Thus, new approaches using 3-D printed impression trays may increase the transfer accuracy of implant impressions. The ability to adjust parameters such as the thickness of the layers and the influence of the openings in the impression tray could potentially affect accuracy. METHODS: Four different types of impression trays (n = 10 for each group) for the conventional impression technique were investigated: conventional custom impression tray, customized foil tray, chairside 3-D printed impression tray with the SHERA system, and the Primeprint system using an implant master model with four implants in the posterior region and a reference cube. After plaster model casting, all models were measured using a coordinate measuring machine, and the deviation from the reference dataset was determined. A statistical ANOVA analysis was performed (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Chairside 3-D printed impression trays showed the best results, followed by conventional custom impression trays. Implant impressions obtained using a customized foil tray exhibited the lowest accuracy. Statistically significant differences were observed between 3-D printed impression trays and conventional custom impression and customized foil trays (p < 0.05). Whereas, the implant position did not have any significant influence on accuracy (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Chairside 3-D printed impression trays significantly increase the transfer accuracy for implant impression taking.

Comparative evaluation of open tray impression technique: investigating the precision of four splinting materials in multiple implants.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the relative positioning accuracy of multiple implants utilizing four distinct types of splinting materials. METHODS: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare the precision of four splinting materials in an open tray impression technique in multiple implant situations. Based on the material used for splinting, four groups were made (n = 40)- Group A: Conventional Method, Group B: Prefabricated Pattern Resin Framework, Group C: Prefabricated Metal Framework, Group D: Light Cured Pattern Resin, these groups were compared with the master model. A heat-cured clear acrylic resin and a master model were constructed. A pilot milling machine drill was used to drill four parallel holes in the anterior and premolar regions, which were later labeled as A, B, C, and D positions from right to left. Then, sequential drilling was carried out, and four 3.75­mm diameter and 13-mm long ADIN implant analogs with internal hex were placed in the acrylic model using a surveyor for proper orientation. The impression posts were then manually screwed to the implant analogs using an open tray, and they were secured to the implants using 10 mm flat head guide pins with a 15 N.cm torque. 10 Open tray polyether impressions were made, and casts were poured. Each splinting method's distortion values were measured using a coordinate measuring machine capable of recordings in the X-, Y-, and Z-axes. Comparison of mean distances for X1, X2, and X3 was made using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Pairwise comparison was done using Post Hoc Tukey's Test. RESULTS: The differences between the groups were significant when assessing the distances X1, X2, and X3 (p < 0.05). The comparison of deviations between the groups revealed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) for the deviation distance X3 but not for the deviation distances X1 and X2. For distance Y1, the difference between the groups was statistically significant (p0.05), but it was not significant for distances Y2 and Y3. A statistically significant difference was seen in the comparison between the groups (p < 0.05) for the deviation distances Y1, Y2, and Y3. The results were statistically significant for the distance Z1 comparisons, namely, control vs. Group A (p = 0.012), control vs. Group B (p = 0.049), control vs. Group C (p = 0.048), and control vs. Group D (p = 0.021), and for distance Z3 comparison for control vs. Group A (p = 0.033). The results were statistically insignificant for the distance Z2 comparisons (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All splinting materials produced master casts with measurements in close proximity to the reference model. However, prefabricated pattern resin bars splinting showed the highest accuracy among the studied techniques. The most recent splinting techniques using prefabricated metal framework and light-cure pattern resin showed similar accuracy.