Accuracy of Digital Impression Taking Using Intraoral Scanner Versus the Conventional Technique
Objectives: Intraoral scanners have shown promising results when used as an adjunct or alternative to conventional impression techniques. This study compared the accuracy of digital impression taking using an intraoral scanner versus the conventional technique.
Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, a typodont molar tooth was prepared as the standard model and scanned by TRIOS intraoral scanner. Ten digital impressions were fabricated as such and intraoral scans were sent to the manufacturers. In the conventional method, using addition silicone impression material, a stone die was fabricated. Using a computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing scanner, the die was scanned, and the data were transferred to the software. After the fabrication of frameworks, the replica technique was used. The replicas’ thickness (indicative of the gap between the framework and the model and the accuracy of impression taking) was 12 points. The data were analyzed using student's t-test.
Results: The mean thickness of replicas (gap between the internal surface of frameworks and the standard model) at the three points in the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal sections in the digital impression technique was lower than that in the conventional technique (P<0.0001). In other words, the accuracy of impressions taken by the digital method was significantly higher than those taken by the conventional method.
Conclusion: Intraoral digital scanner had significantly higher accuracy than the conventional method in all points. Thus, the digital method can be reliably used as an adjunct or alternative to the conventional method to increase the accuracy of impression taking.
2. Akyalcin S, Cozad BE, English JD, Colville CD, Laman S. Diagnostic accuracy of impression-free digital models. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Dec;144(6):916-22.
3. Zaruba M, Ender A, Mehl A. New applications for three-dimensional follow-up and quality control using optical impression systems and OraCheck. Int J Comput Dent. 2014;17(1):53-64.
4. Ziegler M. Digital impression taking with reproducibly high precision. Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(2):159-63.
5. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Sep;17(7):1759-64.
6. Craig RG. Review of dental impression materials. Adv Dent Res. 1988 Aug;2(1):51-64.
7. Chandran DT, Jagger DC, Jagger RG, Barbour ME. Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng. 2010;20(5):243-9.
8. Piwowarczyk A, Ottl P, Buchler A, Lauer HC, Hoffmann A. In vitro study on the dimensional accuracy of selected materials for monophase elastic impression making. Int J Prosthodont. 2002 Mar-Apr;15(2):168-74.
9. Thongthammachat S, Moore BK, Barco MT, 2nd, Hovijitra S, Brown DT, Andres CJ. Dimensional accuracy of dental casts: influence of tray material, impression material, and time. J Prosthodont. 2002 Jun;11(2):98-108.
10. Bosch G, Ender A, Mehl A. A 3-dimensional accuracy analysis of chairside CAD/CAM milling processes. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Dec;112(6):1425-31.
11. Luthardt RG, Sandkuhl O, Herold V, Walter MH. Accuracy of mechanical digitizing with a CAD/CAM system for fixed restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Mar-Apr;14(2):146-51.
12. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008 May;204(9):505-11.
13. Fasbinder DJ. Digital dentistry: innovation for restorative treatment. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2010;31 Spec No 4:2-11; quiz 2.
14. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent. 2009;12(1):11-28.
15. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010 Jul;38(7):553-9.
16. Galhano GA, Pellizzer EP, Mazaro JV. Optical impression systems for CAD-CAM restorations. J Craniofac Surg. 2012 Nov;23(6):e575-9.
17. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent. 2005 Oct;8(4):283-94.
18. Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, et al. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(2):515-23.
19. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 May;20(4):799-806.
20. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Guth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016 Mar;20(2):283-9.
21.. Kachalia PR, Geissberger MJ. Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010 May;38(5):323-30.
22. Kohorst P, Brinkmann H, Dittmer MP, Borchers L, Stiesch M. Influence of the veneering process on the marginal fit of zirconia fixed dental prostheses. J Oral Rehabil. 2010 Apr;37(4):283-91.
23. Kokubo Y, Nagayama Y, Tsumita M, Ohkubo C, Fukushima S, Vult von Steyern P. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of In-Ceram crowns fabricated using the GN-I system. J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Oct;32(10):753-8.
24. Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult von Steyern P, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32(7):526-30.
25. Kokubo Y, Tsumita M, Kano T, Sakurai S, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of zirconia all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthodont Res. 2011 Jan;55(1):40-3.
26. Rahme HY, Tehini GE, Adib SM, Ardo AS, Rifai KT. In vitro evaluation of the "replica technique" in the measurement of the fit of Procera crowns. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2008 Feb;9(2):25-32.
27. Tsumita M, Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Nagayama Y, Sakurai S, Fukushima S. Clinical evaluation of marginal and internal gaps of zirconia-based 3-unit CAD/CAM fixed partial dentures. Prosthodont Res Pract. 2007;6(2):114-9.
28. Boening KW, Wolf BH, Schmidt AE, Kastner K, Walter MH. Clinical fit of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Oct;84(4):419-24.
29. Eames WB, Sieweke JC. Seven acrylic resins for custom trays and five putty-wash systems compared. Oper Dent. 1980;5(4):162-7.
30. Miyazaki T, Hotta Y, Kunii J, Kuriyama S, Tamaki Y. A review of dental CAD/CAM: current status and future perspectives from 20 years of experience. Dent Mater J. 2009 Jan;28(1):44-56.
31.. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2015 Nov;19(8):2027-34.
32. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016 Aug;116(2):184-90. e12.
33. Brawek PK, Wolfart S, Endres L, Kirsten A, Reich S. The clinical accuracy of single crowns exclusively fabricated by digital workflow--the comparison of two systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Dec;17(9):2119-25.
34. Grenade C, Mainjot A, Vanheusden A. Fit of single tooth zirconia copings: comparison between various manufacturing processes. J Prosthet Dent. 2011 Apr;105(4):249-55.
35. Ali AO. Accuracy of digital impressions achieved from five different digital impression systems. Dentistry. 2015;5:5.
|Dental Impression Technique; Computer-Aided Design; Dimensional Measurement Accuracy|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|