Morphological Comparison of Residual Ridge in Impression for Removable Partial Denture between Digital and Conventional Techniques: A Preliminary In-Vivo Study.

Although digital impression using an intraoral scanner (IOS) has been applied for removable partial denture (RPD) fabrication, it is still unclear how the morphology of a residual ridge recorded by digital impression would differ from that recorded by conventional impression. This in vivo study investigated the morphological difference in the recorded residual ridge between digital and conventional impressions. Vertical and horizontal displacements (VD and HD) in residual ridges recorded by digital and conventional impressions were assessed in 22 participants (15 female; mean age 78.2 years) based on the morphology of the tissue surface of in-use RPD. Additionally, the mucosal thickness of the residual ridge was recorded using an ultrasound diagnostic device. VD and HD were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and the correlation of mucosal thickness with VD and HD was analyzed using Spearman's ρ. The VD of digital impression was significantly greater than that of a conventional impression (p = 0.031), while no significant difference was found in HD (p = 0.322). Meanwhile, the mucosal thickness showed no significant correlation with the recorded morphology of the residual ridge, regardless of the impression techniques. It was concluded that the digital impression would result in a greater displacement in the height of the residual ridge from the morphology of in-use RPD than the conventional impression.

Effect of abutment tooth location on the accuracy of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner for removable partial dentures.

PURPOSE: To verify the effect of abutment tooth location on the accuracy of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner (IOS) for removable partial dentures (RPDs). METHODS: The target abutment teeth included the left first premolar (#34), second molar (#37), and right second premolar (#45) in a mandibular Kennedy class II model and the left and right second molars (#37, #47) in a class III model. Only #37 was isolated from the remaining teeth by the mucosal area in both models. Digital impressions were obtained using a desktop scanner (reference data) and an IOS (IOS data; scanning origin #37; n=10). The general trueness based on the entire model superimposition (TG), local trueness (TL) of an individual tooth, and dimensional accuracy (coordinate and linear accuracy) of the IOS data of the target abutment teeth were compared (α=0.05). RESULTS: In both models, #37 showed significantly inferior TG (P<0.01), superior TL (P<0.01), and mesial coordinate displacement (P<0.01 and P<0.05 in class II and III models, respectively). Intra-model comparisons showed that #45 in the class II model and #47 in the class III model had significantly inferior linear accuracy (P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively) and buccal coordinate displacement (P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively) compared with the other target teeth. CONCLUSIONS: In digital impressions of RPDs, isolation of abutment teeth by mucosal areas can reduce general trueness based on the entire dental arch and mesial tooth displacement, whereas increased distance from the scanning origin can adversely affect local trueness and dimensional accuracy.

Effect of Scanning Origin Location on Data Accuracy of Abutment Teeth Region in Digital Impression Acquired Using Intraoral Scanner for Removable Partial Denture: A Preliminary In Vitro Study.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of scanning origin location on the data accuracy of removable partial denture (RPD) abutment teeth region in digital impressions acquired by an intraoral scanner. A mandibular partially edentulous model including the following target abutment teeth was used: the left second molar (#37); left first premolar (#34); and right second premolar (#45). The following scanning strategies were tested: the strategy starting from #37 to mesial direction (37M); strategies starting from #34 to mesial (34M) and distal directions (34D), and strategies starting from #45 to mesial (45M) and distal directions (45D). The evaluated measures were trueness, precision, and linear accuracy. One-way and two-way ANOVA were performed for the comparison of trueness and linear accuracy, while Kruskal-Wallis test was performed for the precision comparison (α = 0.05). 45M and 45D showed significantly superior trueness of #34 to 37M and 34D. 45M also showed significantly superior trueness of #45 to 34. 45D showed significantly inferior linear accuracy of #34 and superior linear accuracy of #45 compared to other strategies. It was concluded that scanning origin location would have an impact on data accuracy of RPD abutment teeth region in digital impressions acquired by intraoral scanner.

Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible.

PURPOSE: It remains unclear whether digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner are sufficiently accurate for use in fabrication of removable partial dentures. We therefore compared the trueness and precision between conventional and digital impressions in the partially edentulous mandible. METHODS: Mandibular Kennedy Class I and III models with soft silicone simulated-mucosa placed on the residual edentulous ridge were used. The reference models were converted to standard triangulated language (STL) file format using an extraoral scanner. Digital impressions were obtained using an intraoral scanner with a large or small scanning head, and converted to STL files. For conventional impressions, pressure impressions of the reference models were made and working casts fabricated using modified dental stone; these were converted to STL file format using an extraoral scanner. Conversion to STL file format was performed 5 times for each method. Trueness and precision were evaluated by deviation analysis using three-dimensional image processing software. RESULTS: Digital impressions had superior trueness (54-108µm), but inferior precision (100-121µm) compared to conventional impressions (trueness 122-157µm, precision 52-119µm). The larger intraoral scanning head showed better trueness and precision than the smaller head, and on average required fewer scanned images of digital impressions than the smaller head (p<0.05). On the color map, the deviation distribution tended to differ between the conventional and digital impressions. CONCLUSIONS: Digital impressions are partially comparable to conventional impressions in terms of accuracy; the use of a larger scanning head may improve the accuracy for removable partial denture fabrication.