Abstract

Aim: The aim of this article is to compare two impression techniques: digital and conventional, in the case of an All-on-Four implant-supported hybrid prosthesis, in order to draw a clinical conclusion regarding the accuracy of adaptation of the prosthetic reconstructions.

Materials and Methods: On a prototype maxillary model made of an extra hard white acrylic resin, were placed four Straumann^Ò Bone Level implants with the Regular CrossFit^Ò connection (RC): as a 4.1 mm in diameter by 10 mm of length. Based on the All-on-Four concept, the two implants at the lateral incisors (12, 22) were placed in a straight axis, while the other two implants were inclined 45-degrees distally at the level of the second premolars (15, 25). Thus, on this prototype model, twenty impressions were made including ten impressions taken using the Trios^Ò3 (3Shape), and ten conventional impressions were obtained using a custom-made open-tray and the Impregum Penta^Ò (3M-ESPE) as a materiel of choice. Subsequently, digitalization of plaster models obtained from conventional impressions was required, to allow the superimposition of digital and conventional impressions with the control model so as to compare the accuracy of the two different impressions techniques.

Results: This study showed that horizontal and vertical mean inaccuracies were significantly different at the anterior and posterior sites for digital and conventional impressions (-p-value < 0.05), indicating that digital impressions deviations were smaller than those associated with conventional techniques.

Conclusion: For a model with four implants following the All-on-Four concept, the digital impression proves to be more precise and more reliable than the conventional impression.

Clinical Significance: For an All-on-Four treatment concept, digital impression techniques are recommended, demonstrating clinically acceptable outcomes.

Keywords: All-on-Four; Implants; Precision; Reliability; Digital Impression; Intraoral Scan; Conventional Impression; Polyether

References

1. Maló P., et al. “The All-on-4 concept for full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae: A longitudinal study with 5-13 years of follow-up”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research4 (2019): 538-549.
2. Maló P., et al. “The All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: A longitudinal study with 10 to 18 years of follow-up”. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research4 (2019): 565-577.
3. Attard NJ., et al. “Long-term treatment costs associated with implant-supported mandibular prostheses in edentulous patients”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics2 (2005): 117-123.
4. Ting-Shu S and Jian S. “Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review”. The Journal of Prosthodontics4 (2015): 313-321.
5. Soto-Penaloza D., et al. “The all-on-four treatment concept: Systematic review”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry3 (2017): 474-488.
6. Vasilakos G., et al. “Assessment of different techniques for 3D superimposition of serial digital maxillary dental casts on palatal structures”. Scientific Reports1 (2017): 5838.
7. Park T-J., et al. “A method for mandibular dental arch superimposition using 3D cone beam CT and orthodontic 3D digital model”. Korean Journal of Orthodontics4 (2012): 169-181.
8. Wesemann C., et al. “Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: A comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing”. Quintessence International1 (2017): 41-50.
9. Suttin ZB., et al. “System and method for improved intra-oral scanning protocol and calibration. U.S. Patent Application 16.1 (2019): 287-439.
10. Aragón MLC., et al. “Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review”. European Journal of Orthodontics4 (2016): 429-434.
11. Abrol S., et al. “A Comparative Analysis of Master Casts Obtained using Different Surface Treatments on Impression Copings for Single Tooth Implant Replacement -An In vitro Study”. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research8 (2017): 102-105.
12. Siadat H., et al. “Comparison of Different Impression Techniques When Using the All-on-Four Implant Treatment Protocol”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics3 (2016): 265-270.
13. Gherlone E., et al. “Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for “All-on-Four” Restorations”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants2 (2016): 324-330.
14. Lee S-J and Cho S-B. “Accuracy of five implant impression technique: effect of splinting materials and methods”. The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics4 (2011): 177-185.
15. Hoods-Moonsammy V., et al. “A Comparison of the Accuracy of Polyether, Polyvinyl Siloxane, and Plaster Impressions for Long-Span Implant-Supported Prostheses”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics5 (2014): 433-438.
16. Chia VA., et al. “In Vitro Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: The Effect of Implant Angulation”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants2 (2017): 313-321.
17. Güth J-F., et al. “A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro”. Clinical Oral Investigations7 (2016): 1487-1494.
18. Zimmermann M., et al. “Intraoral scanning systems-a current overview”. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry2 (2015): 101-129.
19. Alikhasi M., et al. “Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type”. International Journal of Dentistry 4 (2018): 3761750.
20. Rech-Ortega C., et al. “Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner”. Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral, Cirugia Bucal1 (2019): 89-95.
21. Kim KR., et al. “Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry6 (2019): 543-549.
22. Tan MY., et al. “Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants2 (2019): 366-380.
23. Huang R., et al. “Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation”. Clinical Oral Implants Research7 (2020): 625-633.
24. Ender A and Mehl A. “In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions”. Quintessence International1 (2015): 9-17.
25. Mangano FG., et al. “Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study”. PLoS One9 (2016): 107-163.
26. Giménez B., et al. “Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants4 (2014): 853-862.
27. Chew AA., et al. “Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level”. The International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants1 (2017): 70-80.
28. Jivanescu A., et al. “Clinical Factors Influence the Trueness of Intra-oral Scanning”. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry1 (2019): 51-55.
29. Abizadeh N., et al. “Digital versus plaster study models: how accurate and reproducible are they?” Journal of Orthodontics3 (2012): 151-159.
30. Ribeiro P., et al. “Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions-An In Vitro Study”. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health8 (2018): 1599.
31. Kim M-K., et al. “The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners used in dentistry”. Clinical Anatomy3 (2019): 430-438.
32. Chochlidakis KM., et al. “Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry2 (2016): 184-190.
33. Ahlholm P., et al. “Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review: Digital vs. Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics”. Journal of Prosthodontic1 (2018): 35-41.

Citation

Citation: Elie Nasr., et al. “Accuracy of Digital Vs Conventional Implant Impressions for an All-on-Four Treatment Concept”. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 5.11 (2021): 98-106.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2021 Elie Nasr., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.