Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant-level conventional and digital impressions for atrophied maxillary ridges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve participants with atrophied edentulous maxillary ridges received six implants. Six months later and after soft tissue maturation around healing abutments, a control cast was constructed using the final passive restoration for each patient. Two types of implant-level impression techniques were carried out for each patient: (1) conventional (splinted open-tray) impression technique and (2) digital impression technique. For both techniques, scan bodies were labeled from the most distal implant on the left side (A, B, C, D, E, and F) and scanning was made. Accuracy of both techniques was measured using in vitro (two-dimensional and three-dimensional) and in vivo (clinical) methods. Two-dimensional methods include measurement of the difference in linear distances AB, AC AD, AE, and AF. Geomagic software was used to assess the three-dimensional deviation between the two impression techniques using the superimposition of standard tessellation language files. The incidence and percentage of nonpassive frameworks and framework misfits of final restorations for both types of impression techniques were assessed using the single screw test. RESULTS: For all distances, digital impressions recorded significantly higher deviation from control measurements than conventional impressions. The highest two-dimensional linear deviation was noted for AF distance and the lowest difference was noted for AB distance. For all scan bodies, digital impressions recorded significantly higher three-dimensional deviation than conventional impressions. The highest three-dimensional deviation was noted with scan bodies C and D. Digital impressions recorded a significantly higher incidence of nonpassive frameworks and framework misfits than digital impressions. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that the conventional implant-level impression technique showed greater in vitro and in vivo accuracy than the digital impression technique when used for full-arch maxillary fixed restorations on inclined implants.

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.

A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of a digital implant impression technique using a TRIOS 3Shape intraoral scanner (IOS) compared to conventional implant impression techniques (pick-up and transfer) in clinical situations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-six patients who had two implants (Implantium, internal connection) ranging in diameter between 3.8 and 4.8 mm in posterior regions participated in this study after signing a consent form. Thirty-six reference models (RM) were fabricated by attaching two impression copings intraorally, splinted with autopolymerizing acrylic resin, verified by sectioning through the middle of the index, and rejoined again with freshly mixed autopolymerizing acrylic resin pattern (Pattern Resin) with the brush bead method. After that, the splinted assemblies were attached to implant analogs (DANSE) and impressed with type III dental stone (Gypsum Microstone) in standard plastic die lock trays. Thirty-six working casts were fabricated for each conventional impression technique (i.e., pick-up and transfer). Thirty-six digital impressions were made with a TRIOS 3Shape IOS. Eight of the digitally scanned files were damaged; 28 digital scan files were retrieved to STL format. A coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) was used to record linear displacement measurements (x, y, and z-coordinates), interimplant distances, and angular displacements for the RMs and conventionally fabricated working casts. CATIA 3D evaluation software was used to assess the digital STL files for the same variables as the CMM measurements. CMM measurements made on the RMs and conventionally fabricated working casts were compared with 3D software measurements made on the digitally scanned files. Data were statistically analyzed using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation matrix and linear method, followed by the Bonferroni method for pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The results showed significant differences between the pick-up and digital groups in all of the measured variables (p < 0.001). Concerning the transfer and digital groups, the results were statistically significant in angular displacement (p < 0.001), distance measurements (p = 0.01), and linear displacement (p = 0.03); however, between the pick-up and transfer groups, there was no statistical significance in all of the measured variables (interimplant distance deviation, linear displacement, and angular displacement deviations). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of this study, the digital implant impression technique had the least accuracy. Based on the study outcomes, distance and angulation errors associated with the intraoral digital implant impressions were too large to fabricate well-fitting restorations for partially edentulous patients. The pick-up implant impression technique was the most accurate, and the transfer technique revealed comparable accuracy to it.