Digital vs Conventional Full‐Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws. Issue 4 (31st May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Papaspyridakos, Panos; De Souza, Andre; Finkelman, Matthew; Sicilia, Elena; Gotsis, Sotirios; Chen, Yo‐wei; Vazouras, Konstantinos; Chochlidakis, Konstantinos
• Is Part Of: Journal of prosthodontics. Volume 32:Issue 4(2023)
• Page Start: 325
• Page End: 330
• Publication Date: 2022-05-31
• Subjects: 3D Printing -- complete‐arch implant impressions -- dental implants -- digital dentistry -- digital implant impression -- digital implant scans -- digital workflow -- full‐arch implant impressions -- full‐arch -- implant rehabilitation; Prosthodontics -- Periodicals; Dental implants -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; 617.69
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13536
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1059-941X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: There is a paucity of comparative clinical studies assessing the accuracy of full‐arch digital scans versus conventional implant impressions. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the three‐dimensional (3D) deviations between full‐arch digital scans and conventional implant impressions for edentulous maxillae and mandibles. Materials and methods: Twenty‐seven patients (36 edentulous jaws) were treated with one‐piece, screw‐retained implant‐supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs). Twenty‐one jaws were maxillary, and 15 were mandibular. Full‐arch conventional impressions and intraoral digital scans with scan bodies and an intraoral scanner had been taken during the impression phase. Following verification of the conventional stone casts, the casts were digitized. The generated standard tessellation language (STL) files from both impression techniques were merged and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary aim was to evaluate the accuracy between conventional and digital full‐arch scans, while the effect of the edentulous jaw in 3D accuracy was the secondary aim. Results: The cumulative 3D (mean ± SD) deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full‐arch digital scans and digitized stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 88 ±24 μm. In the maxillary group, the mean ± SD 3D deviation was 85 ±25 μm, compared to 92 ±23 μm for the mandibular group ( p = 0.444). Conclusion: The 3D implant deviations found between the full‐arch digital and conventional impressions lie within the clinically acceptable threshold. No statistically significant difference was identified between maxillary and mandibular jaws in terms of 3D deviations.