Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning Versus Analog Impression for Multiple Implant-supported Prostheses in Long Edentulous Spans: A Comparative Clinical Study.

Jie Ma, Binghua Zhang, Hao Song, Shuang Xu, Tiantian Chen, Tao Song
{"title":"Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning Versus Analog Impression for Multiple Implant-supported Prostheses in Long Edentulous Spans: A Comparative Clinical Study.","authors":"Jie Ma, Binghua Zhang, Hao Song, Shuang Xu, Tiantian Chen, Tao Song","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Clinical scientific evidence of the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) impressions for multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches is limited. This in vivo study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of IOS impressions for multiple implants by comparing them with analog impressions.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Patients with three adjacent implants in partially edentulous arches were recruited. For each arch, IOS impressions were obtained. Using the analog splinted impression technique, casts were obtained and scanned with an extraoral scanner. Using metrology software, the distances and angles between the implants were measured in all IOS and analog impression Standard Tessellation Language files. The absolute values of the distance and angular deviation were calculated and analyzed by comparing the two impression methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-four patients with partially edentulous arches were enrolled. The distance deviation between the IOS and analog impressions was 85.09 ± 58.73 µm, which was significantly lower than the clinically acceptable error (150 µm; P < .001). The angular deviation was 0.515 ± 0.426°. Distance deviations were significantly correlated with the interimplant distances (r = 0.384, P = .001) and angulations (r = 0.278, P =.022).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches, the distance deviation between the IOS and analog impression was within the clinicall acceptable range of misfit and increased with increasing interimplant distance and angulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.9180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical scientific evidence of the accuracy of intraoral scanning (IOS) impressions for multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches is limited. This in vivo study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of IOS impressions for multiple implants by comparing them with analog impressions.

Materials and methods: Patients with three adjacent implants in partially edentulous arches were recruited. For each arch, IOS impressions were obtained. Using the analog splinted impression technique, casts were obtained and scanned with an extraoral scanner. Using metrology software, the distances and angles between the implants were measured in all IOS and analog impression Standard Tessellation Language files. The absolute values of the distance and angular deviation were calculated and analyzed by comparing the two impression methods.

Results: Thirty-four patients with partially edentulous arches were enrolled. The distance deviation between the IOS and analog impressions was 85.09 ± 58.73 µm, which was significantly lower than the clinically acceptable error (150 µm; P < .001). The angular deviation was 0.515 ± 0.426°. Distance deviations were significantly correlated with the interimplant distances (r = 0.384, P = .001) and angulations (r = 0.278, P =.022).

Conclusions: For multiple implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arches, the distance deviation between the IOS and analog impression was within the clinicall acceptable range of misfit and increased with increasing interimplant distance and angulation.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning Versus Analog Impression for Multiple Implant-supported Prostheses in Long Edentulous Spans: A Comparative Clinical Study. Effect of Number and Angulation of Implants on Accuracy of Digital Impression in Completely Edentulous Arch. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners in Endocrown Restorations. The Effect of Build Angle on the Mechanical Properties of 3D- Printed Custom Tray Resin Specimens. Maxillary All-on-6 Treatment Using Zygomatic Implants. Bone Loss Evaluation by CBCT: 3-Year Follow-up.
×
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