The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners used in dentistry.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the factors affecting intra-oral scanner accuracy by analyzing variation in measurements of a dental model according to scanning distance. A dental cast, including a prepared left mandibular first molar, was used. Rectangular frames measuring 20 × 30 mm with heights of 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 mm were made. The model was scanned 10 times with a reference scanner to obtain the true value. Scanning was performed 10 times at four distances of 0, 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 mm with the frame of each height using the following intra-oral scanners: TRIOS; CS 3500; and PlanScan. In the linear distance measurement method (2D), measurements were taken at five parameters using the Rapidform software. In the best-fit alignment method (3D), using the Geomagic Control X, the root mean square values of the two scan images were calculated. In the 2D comparison, the different from the reference value was the smallest at 2.5 and 5.0 mm. In the 3D comparison, 2.5 and 5.0 mm were the most accurate, and 0 mm was the least accurate among the four distances. To the best of our knowledge, this study was the first to evaluate the accuracy of scanning distances, and found a difference between the accuracy of the scanning distance and the accuracy of the scanner. Moreover, the results of this study indicated that the scanning distance was a variable affecting accuracy. Clin. Anat. 32:430-438, 2019. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by laboratory impression scan protocols.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) complete removable dental prostheses (CRDPs) have gained popularity, conventional impressions are still common for CAD-CAM CRDP treatment. These need to be digitized and converted into virtual edentulous casts with a laboratory impression scan protocol during prosthesis fabrication. How this can best be accomplished is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by a dental laboratory laser scanner and a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner with a digitized master cast. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A master cast was digitized as the virtual reference cast. Ten polyvinyl siloxane impressions were made on the master cast and scanned with the dental laboratory laser scanner and CBCT scanner. The impressions were sprayed with antiglare spray and rescanned. Four groups of virtual study casts (N=40) were created from the impression scans. All virtual study casts and the reference cast were registered with surface-matching software, and the root mean square (RMS) values (representation of overall accuracy) and percentage of measurement data points within 1 standard deviation (SD) of mean RMS values (%, representation of overall reproducibility) among the 4 study groups were measured. Additionally, 95 numeric distance differences (representation of accuracy at each region) were measured in 5 distinct regions: the apex of the denture border, 6 mm from denture border, crest of the ridge, palate, and posterior palatal seal. The repeated-measures ANOVA and post hoc test (t grouping) were used to determine statistical differences (α=.05). RESULTS: The laboratory scanner group had a significantly larger RMS value (4.0 ±0.3 µm, P<.001) and smaller percentage of measurement data points within 1 SD of mean RMS value (77.5 ±1.0%, P<.001). The RMS values between the CBCT scanner (1.2 ±0.3 µm) and CBCT scanner-spray (1.1 ±0.2 µm) groups were not significantly different (P=.968), and the percentage of measurement data points within 1 SD of mean RMS values (90.1 ±1.1% versus 89.5 ±0.8%) were also not significantly different (P=.662). The numeric distance differences across 5 regions were affected by the scanning protocols (P<.001). The laboratory scanner and laboratory scanner-spray groups had significantly higher numeric distance differences at the apex of the denture border and crest of the ridge regions (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The CBCT scanner created more accurate and reproducible virtual edentulous casts, and the antiglare spray only significantly improved the accuracy and reproducibility of virtual edentulous casts created by the dental laboratory laser scanner. The accuracy of the virtual edentulous casts was different across 5 regions and was affected by the scanning protocols.

Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. METHODS: A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/- 25 µm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan. CONCLUSIONS: There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply.

A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions.

BACKGROUND: Intraoral scanners are devices for capturing digital impressions in dentistry. Until now, several in vitro studies have assessed the trueness of digital impressions, but in vivo studies are missing. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to introduce a new method to assess trueness of intraoral scanners and digital impressions in an in vivo clinical set-up. METHODS: A digital impression using an intraoral scanner (Trios® 3 Cart wired, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and a conventional alginate impression (Cavex Impressional®, Cavex, Haarlem, the Netherlands) as clinical reference were made for two patients assigned for full mouth extraction. A total of 30 teeth were collected upon surgery after impressions making. The gypsum model created from conventional impression and extracted teeth were then scanned in a lab scanner (Activity 885®, SmartOptics, Bochum, Germany). Digital model of the intraoral scanner (DM), digital model of the conventional gypsum cast (CM) and those of the extracted natural teeth (NT) were imported to a reverse engineering software (3-matic®, Materialise, Leuven, Belgium) in which the three models were registered then DM and CM were compared to their corresponding teeth in NT by distance map calculations. RESULTS: DM had statistically insignificant better trueness when compared to CM for total dataset (p = 0.15), statistically insignificant better trueness for CM when mandibular arches analyzed alone (p = 0.56), while a significantly better DM trueness (p = 0.013) was found when only maxillary arches were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that digital impression technique is clinically as good as or better than the current reference standard for study models of orthognathic surgery patients.

Digital evaluation of the dimensional accuracy of four different implant impression techniques.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of four different implant impression techniques of a mandibular edentulous model with five parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five dental implants were placed in an edentulous mandibular model in parallel. A total of forty impressions were obtained using four different impression techniques. In Group 1 (G1) and Group 2 (G2), closed tray impressions with and without plastic caps, respectively, were used. In Group 3 (G3) and Group 4 (G4), open tray impressions with a direct splinted technique and an improved direct splinted technique, respectively, were used. All the impressions were poured with Type IV dental stone. Master model and study casts were scanned with a laser optical scanner and aligned by observing the superpositions of the anatomical landmarks using a software program. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Fifty measurements of the apical, coronal, and angular discrepancies of the master and study casts were obtained (n = 50) and statistically analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance and post hoc (least significant difference ) and Friedman's tests. RESULTS: The lowest accuracy was obtained from G2 when the angular (1.48°), coronal (0.32 µm), and apical (0.14 µm) deviations were tested (P < 0.05), whereas no statistically significant differences were found among the other groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In cases with five parallel mandibular implants, improved accuracy was achieved using the direct splinted technique, the improved direct splinted technique, or the closed tray impression technique with snap on plastic caps.

Effect of dental technician disparities on the 3-dimensional accuracy of definitive casts.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Studies that evaluated the effect of dental technician disparities on the accuracy of presectioned and postsectioned definitive casts are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of presectioned and postsectioned definitive casts fabricated by different dental technicians by using a 3-dimensional computer-aided measurement method. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An arch-shaped metal master model consisting of 5 abutments resembling prepared mandibular incisors, canines, and first molars and with a 6-degree total angle of convergence was designed and fabricated by computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technology. Complete arch impressions were made (N=110) from the master model, using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) and delivered to 11 dental technicians. Each technician fabricated 10 definitive casts with dental stone, and the obtained casts were numbered. All casts were sectioned, and removable dies were obtained. The master model and the presectioned and postsectioned definitive casts were digitized with an extraoral scanner, and the virtual master model and virtual presectioned and postsectioned definitive casts were obtained. All definitive casts were compared with the master model by using computer-aided measurements, and the 3-dimensional accuracy of the definitive casts was determined with best fit alignment and represented in color-coded maps. Differences were analyzed using univariate analyses of variance, and the Tukey honest significant differences post hoc tests were used for multiple comparisons (α=.05). RESULTS: The accuracy of presectioned and postsectioned definitive casts was significantly affected by dental technician disparities (P<.001). The largest dimensional changes were detected in the anterior abutments of both of the definitive casts. The changes mostly occurred in the mesiodistal dimension (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the accuracy of presectioned and postsectioned definitive casts is susceptible to dental technician differences.

Accuracy of 3-dimensional curvilinear measurements on digital models with intraoral scanners.

INTRODUCTION: Our objectives were to evaluate and compare the digital dental models generated from 2 commercial intraoral scanners with manual measurements when performing 3-dimensional surface measurements along a curved line (curvilinear). METHODS: Dry mandibles (n = 61) with intact dentition were used. The mandibles were digitized using 2 chair-side intraoral scanners: Cadent iTero (Align Technology, San Jose, Calif) and Lythos Digital Impression system (Ormco, Orange, Calif). Digitized 3-dimensional models were converted to individual stereolithography files and used with commercial software to obtain the curvilinear measurements. Manual measurements were carried out directly on the mandibular teeth. Measurements were made on different locations on the dental arch in various directions. One-sample t tests and linear regression analyses were performed. To further graphically examine the accuracy between the different methods, Bland-Altman plots were computed. The level of significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between any of the paired methods; this indicated a certain level of agreement between the methods tested (P >0.05). Bland-Altman analysis showed no fixed bias of 1 approach vs the other, and random errors were detected in all comparisons. Although the mean biases of the digital models obtained by the iTero and Lythos scanners, when compared with direct caliper measurements, were low, the comparison of the 2 intraoral scanners yielded the lowest mean bias. No comparison displayed statistical significance for the t scores; this indicated the absence of proportional bias in these comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: The intraoral scanners tested in this study produced digital dental models that were comparatively accurate when performing direct surface measurements along a curved line in 3 dimensions.

Effects of Impression Coping Design, Impression Technique, and Dental Undercuts on the Accuracy of Implant Impressions Assessed by 3-Dimensional Optical Scanning: An In Vitro Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of the type and design of the impression copings on the accuracy of implant impressions in 2 different conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reference model with 2 implants inserted in bilateral mandibular canines was fabricated. The posterior teeth were inserted as tilted to simulate intra-oral undercuts. The teeth were eliminated to create an edentulous condition. Three different impression techniques were performed (open high retentive [OH], open low retentive [OL], closed [C]) for each condition. Total of 48 casts were made. Two scan-bodies were secured on each cast, scanned by an optical scanner. Then, they were compared to the scan of the reference model, and the calculated mean errors were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA and Tukey test. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the complete and partially edentulous groups (F = 3.252, P = 0.079). There was significant difference between the different designs of the impression copings (F = 31.789, P < 0.001) but the interaction between the dependent variables was not significant (F = 0.511, P = 0.603). CONCLUSIONS: The design of the impression copings was more important than the undercuts. The accuracy of the closed tray coping was greater than the low retentive coping and equal to the high retentive coping.

Comparison of the linear dimensional accuracy of the maxillary denture teeth by three flask closure methods. An in vitro study.

PURPOSE: This laboratory study conducted to evaluate and compare the influence of different flask closure methods on linear dimensional changes of standardized simulated maxillary complete dentures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty casts were made from a silicone mold representing an edentulous maxillary arch. Thirty identical maxillary dentures were made and randomly assigned to 3 test groups (A, B, C). In Group A, flasks were placed directly in pressure clamp after trial closure. Group B: The final closure was done in a hydraulic press then transferred to pressure clamp. Group C: After trial closure flask was positioned between the two iron plates of the Restriction System flask closure (RSFC) method. Then linear distances were measured three times before and after polymerization: right incisor to left incisor (RI-LI), right premolar to left premolar (RPM-LPM), right molar to left molar (RM-LM) and left incisor- to- left molar (LI-LM) and right incisor- to- right molar (RI-RM) with the help of digital caliper with an accuracy of 0.01mm. ANOVA and Tuckey's test were used to compare the groups (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Inter molar (LM-RM) width showed the greatest dimensional change after processing and Linear dimensions were not significantly influenced by the packing procedure. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, Restriction System flask closure (RSFC) method demonstrated a similar performance in reducing the tooth movement when compared with other flask closure methods. The posterior region of the denture may present changes in the tooth position after processing, which need to be clinically adjusted.

Accuracy of 3 different impression techniques for internal connection angulated implants.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Making implant impressions with different angulations requires a more precise and time-consuming impression technique. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of nonsplinted, splinted, and snap-fit impression techniques of internal connection implants with different angulations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An experimental device was used to allow a clinical simulation of impression making by means of open and closed tray techniques. Three different impression techniques (nonsplinted, acrylic-resin splinted, and indirect snap-fit) for 6 internal-connected implants at different angulations (0, 15, 25 degrees) were examined using polyether. Impression accuracy was evaluated by measuring the differences in 3-dimensional (3D) position deviations between the implant body/impression coping before the impression procedure and the coping/laboratory analog positioned within the impression, using a coordinate measuring machine. Data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA. Means were compared with the least significant difference criterion at P<.05. RESULTS: Results showed that at 25 degrees of implant angulation, the highest accuracy was obtained with the splinted technique (mean ±SE: 0.39 ±0.05 mm) and the lowest with the snap-fit technique (0.85 ±0.09 mm); at 15 degrees of angulation, there were no significant differences among splinted (0.22 ±0.04 mm) and nonsplinted technique (0.15 ±0.02 mm) and the lowest accuracy obtained with the snap-fit technique (0.95 ±0.15 mm); and no significant differences were found between nonsplinted and splinted technique at 0 degrees of implant placement. CONCLUSIONS: Splinted impression technique exhibited a higher accuracy than the other techniques studied when increased implant angulations at 25 degrees were involved.

Critical appraisal of implant impression accuracies: A systematic review.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Different assessment methods have been used to measure the accuracy of implant impression techniques; therefore, the readers should understand the benefits and limitations of each assessment method used. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to classify the implant impression studies by the assessment methods and techniques used and to understand the characteristics of each assessment method. The results of published studies were also analyzed to draw meaningful conclusions about the accuracy of the implant impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An electronic search of the MEDLINE/PubMed database was performed in February 2013 using specific search terms and predetermined criteria to identify and assess laboratory studies of the accuracy of implant impression techniques. A final list of articles deemed to be of interest was comprehensively reviewed by 2 reviewers to ensure that these were suitable for the purpose of this review. The results of the current review were also compared with results from a previous systematic review. RESULTS: A total of 56 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Thirty-seven studies measured the amount of linear distortion, and 17 studies compared the angular change to assess the accuracy. Most linear or angular distortions were only measured in 2 dimensions, and 3-dimensional analysis was rare. More than 80% of the studies compared nonsplinting versus splinting, direct versus indirect techniques, and different impression materials. CONCLUSIONS: In recent publications, the direct or splint technique showed more accurate results than the indirect or nonsplinted technique. In contrast to external connection implants, inconsistent results were reported for internal connection implants.

Effect of implant angulation and impression technique on impressions of NobelActive implants.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: How the configuration of the NobelActive internal conical connection affects implant impressions is uncertain. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to measure the effect in vitro of closed and open tray impression techniques for NobelActive implants placed at various angulations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six NobelActive implants were placed in a master maxillary cast as follows: 0 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the first molar area, 15 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the first premolar area, and 30 degrees of angulation to a line drawn perpendicular to the occlusal plane in the lateral incisor area. Twelve open tray and 12 closed tray impressions were made. Occlusal, lateral, and frontal view photographs of the resulting casts were used to measure the linear and angular displacement of implant analogs. Statistical analysis was performed with a factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the impressions made of NobelActive implants with the open or closed tray technique (linear displacement: F=0.93, P=.34; angular displacement: F=2.09, P=.15). In addition, implant angulation (0, 15, or 30 degrees) had no effect on the linear or angular displacement of impressions (linear displacement: F=2.72, P=.07; angular displacement: F=0.86, P=.43). Finally, no significant interaction was found between impression technique and implant angulation on NobelActive implants (F=0.25, P=.77; F=1.60, P=.20). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, impression technique (open vs closed tray) and implant angulation (0, 15, and 30 degrees) had no significant effect on in vitro impressions of NobelActive implants.

Clinical efficacy of polyvinyl siloxane impression materials using the one-step two-viscosity impression technique.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Impression making is a challenging clinical procedure for both patients and dentists. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to compare a recently introduced fast-setting polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material with heavy body/light body (HB/LB) combination (Imprint 4; 3M ESPE) (experimental group) with a conventional PVS impression material with HB/LB combination (Imprint 3; 3M ESPE) (control group), using the 1-step 2-viscosity impression technique. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two definitive impressions (1 of each material combination) were made of 20 crown preparations from 20 participants. The quality of impressions was rated by 3 evaluators (clinical evaluator, clinical operator, and dental technician) and by the patients for the level of comfort and taste of the impression materials. The order in which the 2 impressions were made with each material combination was randomized for each crown preparation. A paired t test for paired means and McNemar test for paired proportions were used for statistical comparisons (α=.05). RESULTS: Participants rated the comfort of the impression making with the experimental group significantly higher than that with the control group (P=.001). No significant differences were found in participants' rating for the taste of the impression materials (P=.46). The viscosity for tray material was rated as significantly better for the control group by the clinical operator (P=.004). The readability of the impression and visibility around the finish line were rated as significantly better for the experimental group than for the control group (P<.001). Except for the ease of removal of the stone (RS), the ratings for the 2 groups by the dental technician were similar. The ease of RS was rated as significantly better for the experimental group (P<.001). Eleven dies from the control and 9 from the experimental group were selected for fabrication of the definitive crowns (P=.65). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this clinical study, no significant differences were found in the overall clinical performance of the experimental and the control groups. Impressions made with both materials were clinically acceptable. Participants rated the comfort provided by the experimental group significantly better than that of the control group.

Comparative evaluation of impression accuracy of tilted and straight implants in All-on-Four technique.

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of implant impressions in parallel and nonparallel implants of All-on-Four treatment plan. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A reference model containing 4 internal-connection implant analogs was fabricated according to All-on-Four treatment plan (2 anterior implants at 0 degree and 2 posterior implants at 30 degrees in relation to the perpendicular line). Twenty impressions of this model were made using open-tray impression technique. Impressions were poured with American Dental Association type 4 stone, and the positional accuracy of the implant replica heads in x-, y-, and z- axes was evaluated using a coordinate measuring machine. These measurements were compared with the obtained measurements from the reference model that served as control, and data were analyzed using independent test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The results showed that the accuracy of the implant impressions did not show any significant difference between the tilted and straight implants except in y-coordinate (P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the accuracy of the implant impressions did not differ for different implant angulations in All-on-Four treatment plan.

Comparative evaluation of the effects of implant position, impression material, and tray type on implant impression accuracy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of implant position, impression, and tray material on the accuracy of implant impressions of edentulous arches with multiple implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four experimental groups were produced; medium-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) was used in 3 groups and polyether was used in 1 group. In PVS groups, different tray types were used; metal stock trays, custom acrylic tray, and full-arch perforated plastic trays. In polyether group, custom acrylic trays were used. The discrepancies in 3 dimensions were measured. RESULTS: The casts obtained exhibited small deviations (7.50-9.71 µm) from the master cast. There was no statistically significant difference between the polyether and PVS groups. Similarly, different tray materials did not produce any statistically significant discrepancies within the PVS groups. There was no significant difference among the groups when the accuracy of anterior implants were compared, but within-the-group comparisons showed that except group 1 (GR1), the posterior implants demonstrated more accuracy than anterior ones. CONCLUSIONS: Polyether and PVS can safely be used for the impressions of the edentulous arches with multiple implants and different tray types produce similar accuracy results.

A clinical comparison of cordless and conventional displacement systems regarding clinical performance and impression quality.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: It is not clear whether newly introduced cordless displacement systems are better able to manage gingiva than conventional systems. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vivo study was to evaluate the gingival management ability of 4 different displacement methods with a standardized subgingival preparation finish line. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The effects of 4 displacement techniques on gingival management and impression quality were evaluated by means of 6 evaluation criteria. A subgingival preparation finish line of between 1 and 2 mm was ensured, and the buccal aspects of 252 (n=63) teeth were clinically assessed for ease of application, time spent, bleeding, remnants, and dilatation. The complete reproduction of the preparation finish line and the bubble and void formations on polyether impressions were also evaluated. The data were statistically analyzed with the χ(2) test (α=.05). The Bonferroni correction was used to control Type I error for the pairwise comparison groups (α=.008). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found for all criteria among the groups (P<.05). The nonimpregnated displacement cord group was the least effective group in terms of bleeding and impression quality (P<.008). The aluminum chloride impregnated cord group and the displacement paste with cap group were found to be comparable in terms of remnants, dilatation, and impression quality (P>.008). The retraction cap with paste group showed better results for ease of application, time spent, and bleeding than the aluminum chloride impregnated cord group (P<.008). Although the group with aluminum chloride impregnated cord, displacement paste, and cap showed better results for dilatation, it was time consuming and difficult (P<.008). CONCLUSIONS: Except for the nonimpregnated cord group, all of the groups were comparable and clinically useful, with perfect or acceptable impression qualities.

Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance.

INTRODUCTION: Chairside oral scanners allow direct digital acquisition of the intraoral situation and can eliminate the need for conventional impressions. In this study, we aimed to assess accuracy, scan time, and patient acceptance of a chairside oral scanner when used for full-arch scans; these are critical factors for acceptance of this technology in the orthodontic setting. METHODS: Fifteen patients had digital models made from both intraoral scans (Lava COS; 3M ESPE, St Paul, Minn) and alginate impressions. Each procedure was timed, and patient preference was assessed with a survey. In addition, digital models were made from 5 plaster model pairs using the intraoral scanner and an orthodontic model scanner. Model pairs were digitally superimposed, and differences between models were quantified. Accuracy was assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Time differences were tested for statistical significance with the Student t test. RESULTS: Digital models made using the chairside oral scanner and either impressions or the orthodontic model scanner did not differ significantly. The chair time required to take impressions was significantly shorter than the time required for the intraoral scans. When processing time was included, the time requirement did not differ significantly between methods. Although 73.3% of the patients preferred impressions because they were "easier" or "faster," 26.7% preferred the scan because it was "more comfortable." CONCLUSIONS: Despite the high accuracy of chairside oral scanners, alginate impressions are still the preferred model acquisition method with respect to chair time and patient acceptance. As digital technology continues to progress, intraoral scanning may become more accepted for use in orthodontics.

Evaluation of accuracy of casts of multiple internal connection implant prosthesis obtained from different impression materials and techniques: an in vitro study.

Movement of impression copings inside the impression material using a direct (open tray) impression technique during clinical and laboratory phases may cause inaccuracy in transferring the 3-dimensional spatial orientation of implants intraorally to the cast. Consequently, the prosthesis may require corrective procedures. This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of 3 different impression techniques using polyether and vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material to obtain a precise cast for multiple internal connection implants. A reference acrylic resin model with 4 internal connection implants was fabricated. Impressions of the reference model were made using 3 different techniques and 2 different impression materials. The study consisted of 24 specimens divided into 6 groups of 4 each. Impressions were poured with ADA type IV stone (Kalrock, Kalabhai Karson Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India). All casts were evaluated for the positional accuracy (mm) of the implant replica heads using a profile projector. These measurements were compared to the measurements calculated on the reference resin model, which served as a control. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison procedures to evaluate group means. The results revealed significant difference for anterior implant distance between the 2 impression materials (P < .01) and also among the 3 different techniques (P < .05). The lowest mean variation was found with the polyether impression material and the splinted technique. For posterior implants, the results suggested no significant difference between the 2 impression materials (P ≥ .05). Although results were not statistically significant, the polyether impression material showed the lowest mean variation as compared to the VPS impression material. However, there was a significant difference among the 3 different techniques (P < .05). Among the 3 different techniques, the lowest mean variation between 2 posterior implants was found in the splinted technique. Casts obtained from impression techniques using square impression copings splinted together with autopolymerizing acrylic resin prior to the impression procedure were more accurate than casts obtained from impressions with nonmodified implant impression copings and with airborne particle-abraded, adhesive-coated copings. Casts obtained from polyether impression material were more accurate than casts obtained from vinyl polysiloxane impression material.

Effect of splinting in accuracy of two implant impression techniques.

Because there is no consensus in the literature about the need for a splint between copings, the aim of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, the accuracy of 2 impression techniques for implant-supported prostheses. A master cast was fabricated with four parallel implant abutment analogs and a passive framework. Two groups with 5 casts each were formed: Group 1 (squared impression copings with no splint: S) and Group 2 (splinted squared impression copings, using metal drill burs and Pattern resin: SS). The impression material used was polyvinyl siloxane with open trays for standard preparation of the casts. For each cast, the framework was positioned, and a titanium screw was tightened with 10 N·cm torque in analog A, after which measurements of the abutment-framework interface gaps were performed at analogs C and D. This process was repeated for analog D. These measurements were analyzed using software. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a confidence interval of 95% was used to analyze the data. Significant differences were detected between S and SS in relation to the master cast (P ≤ 0.05). The median values of the abutment-framework interface gaps were as follows: master cast: 39.64 µm; squared impression copings with no splint: 205.86 µm; splinted squared impression copings: 99.19 µm. Under the limitations of this study, the technique presented for Group 2 produces better results compared with the technique used for Group 1.

New applications for three-dimensional follow-up and quality control using optical impression systems and OraCheck.

Intraoral and extraoral scanning systems are continuously improving in terms of operational reliability and image quality. This creates new application options for the standard use of these systems in dental practice. Three-dimensional scans for volumetric and differential analysis of jaw position over time can be generated by superimposing partial or full-arch scans recorded at different time points. These analyses can be performed in a wide range of dental applications to compare and follow treatments or diagnoses over time. In this article, we will describe the indications and applications for OraCheck, a new software application that will be available to Cerec users in Spring 2014.