Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: An in vitro study

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.06.006
{"title":"Accuracy of traditional open-tray impression, stereophotogrammetry, and intraoral scanning with prefabricated aids for implant-supported complete arch prostheses with different implant distributions: An in vitro study","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.06.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Statement of problem</h3><p>Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses<span> (CIFDPs) are technique sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer alternatives to conventional impression making.</span></p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy and passive fit of IOS with prefabricated aids, SPG, and open tray impression (OI) for CIFDPs with different implant distributions.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>Three definitive casts with 4 parallel implants (4-PARA), 4 inclined implants (4-INCL), and 6 parallel implants (6-PARA) were fabricated. Three recording techniques were tested: IOS with prefabricated aids, SPG, and OI. The best and the worst scans were selected to fabricate 18 milled aluminum alloy frameworks. The trueness and precision of distance deviation (∆td and ∆pd), angular deviation (∆tθand ∆pθ), root mean square errors (∆tRMS for ∆pRMS), and passive fit score of frameworks were recorded. Two-way ANOVA was applied.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>SPG showed the best trueness and precision (95%CI of ∆td/∆tθ/∆tRMS, 31 to 39 µm, 0.22 to 0.28 degrees, 20 to 23 µm; 95%CI of ∆pd/∆pθ/∆pRMS, 9 to 11 µm, 0.06 to 0.08 degrees, 8 to 10 µm), followed by OI (61 to 83 µm, 0.33 to 0.48 degrees, 28 to 48 µm; 66 to 81 µm, 0.29 to 0.38 degrees, 32 to 41 µm) and IOS (143 to 193 µm, 0.37 to 0.50 degrees, 81 to 96 µm; 89 to 111 µm, 0.27 to 0.31 degrees, 51 to 62 µm). Tilted implants were associated with increased distance deviation. Increased implant number was associated with improved recording precision. The passive fit of frameworks was negatively correlated with the RMS error, and the correlation coefficient was −0.65 (</span><em>P</em>=.003).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>SPG had the best accuracy. Implant distributions affected implant precision. The RMS error can be used to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16866,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391324004220","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Statement of problem

Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDPs) are technique sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer alternatives to conventional impression making.

Purpose

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy and passive fit of IOS with prefabricated aids, SPG, and open tray impression (OI) for CIFDPs with different implant distributions.

Material and methods

Three definitive casts with 4 parallel implants (4-PARA), 4 inclined implants (4-INCL), and 6 parallel implants (6-PARA) were fabricated. Three recording techniques were tested: IOS with prefabricated aids, SPG, and OI. The best and the worst scans were selected to fabricate 18 milled aluminum alloy frameworks. The trueness and precision of distance deviation (∆td and ∆pd), angular deviation (∆tθand ∆pθ), root mean square errors (∆tRMS for ∆pRMS), and passive fit score of frameworks were recorded. Two-way ANOVA was applied.

Results

SPG showed the best trueness and precision (95%CI of ∆td/∆tθ/∆tRMS, 31 to 39 µm, 0.22 to 0.28 degrees, 20 to 23 µm; 95%CI of ∆pd/∆pθ/∆pRMS, 9 to 11 µm, 0.06 to 0.08 degrees, 8 to 10 µm), followed by OI (61 to 83 µm, 0.33 to 0.48 degrees, 28 to 48 µm; 66 to 81 µm, 0.29 to 0.38 degrees, 32 to 41 µm) and IOS (143 to 193 µm, 0.37 to 0.50 degrees, 81 to 96 µm; 89 to 111 µm, 0.27 to 0.31 degrees, 51 to 62 µm). Tilted implants were associated with increased distance deviation. Increased implant number was associated with improved recording precision. The passive fit of frameworks was negatively correlated with the RMS error, and the correlation coefficient was −0.65 (P=.003).

Conclusions

SPG had the best accuracy. Implant distributions affected implant precision. The RMS error can be used to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同种植体分布的种植体支持全牙弓修复体的传统开托印模、立体摄影测量和口内扫描与预制辅助装置的准确性:体外研究。
问题陈述:全牙弓种植体支持固定义齿(CIFDP)的传统印模技术对技术敏感。目的:本体外研究的目的是评估带有预制辅助装置的 IOS、SPG 和开放式托盘印模(OI)对不同种植体分布的 CIFDP 的准确性和被动配合:制作了带有 4 个平行种植体(4-PARA)、4 个倾斜种植体(4-INCL)和 6 个平行种植体(6-PARA)的三个最终铸模。测试了三种记录技术:使用预制辅助装置的 IOS、SPG 和 OI。选择最好和最差的扫描结果来制作 18 个铣制铝合金框架。记录了距离偏差(Δtd 和 Δpd)、角度偏差(Δtθ 和 Δpθ)、均方根误差(ΔtRMS 和 ΔpRMS)的真实度和精度以及框架的被动拟合得分。结果:SPG 显示出最佳的真实度和精确度(∆td/∆tθ/∆tRMS 的 95%CI 为 31 至 39 µm,0.22 至 0.28 度,20 至 23 µm;∆pd/∆pθ/∆pRMS 的 95%CI 为 9 至 11 µm,0.06 至 0.08 度,8 至 10 µm),其次是 OI(61 至 83 µm,0.33 至 0.48 度,28 至 48 微米;66 至 81 微米,0.29 至 0.38 度,32 至 41 微米)和 IOS(143 至 193 微米,0.37 至 0.50 度,81 至 96 微米;89 至 111 微米,0.27 至 0.31 度,51 至 62 微米)。倾斜种植体与距离偏差增加有关。种植体数量的增加与记录精度的提高有关。框架的被动拟合与均方根误差呈负相关,相关系数为-0.65(P=.003):SPG的精确度最高。种植体分布影响种植体精度。均方根误差可用于评估框架的被动配合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
13.00%
发文量
599
审稿时长
69 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is the leading professional journal devoted exclusively to prosthetic and restorative dentistry. The Journal is the official publication for 24 leading U.S. international prosthodontic organizations. The monthly publication features timely, original peer-reviewed articles on the newest techniques, dental materials, and research findings. The Journal serves prosthodontists and dentists in advanced practice, and features color photos that illustrate many step-by-step procedures. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry is included in Index Medicus and CINAHL.
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of a calibration method based on cone beam computed tomography and intraoral scanner data registration for robot-assisted implant placement: An in vitro study. Can nonhazardous postprocessing cleaning solutions enable adequate surface properties for printed dental casts in different resins? Evaluation of adherence of Candida albicans to differently manufactured acrylic resin denture base materials. Relationship between anterior occlusion, arch dimension, and mandibular movement during speech articulation: A three-dimensional analysis. Response to Letter to the Editor regarding, "The application of 3D printing in dentistry: A bibliometric analysis from 2012 to 2023 (J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Jul 1)".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1