Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-09-2016 | Original Article

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

Authors: Andreas Ender, Moritz Zimmermann, Thomas Attin, Albert Mehl

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 7/2016

Abstract

Objectives

Quadrant impressions are commonly used as alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques.

Materials and methods

Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI, and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90_10 value. The values for all test groups were statistically compared.

Results

The precision ranged from 18.8 (CI) to 58.5 μm (T-Tray), with the highest precision in the CI, T-Def, BC4.0, TRC, and TRI groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly depending on the impression method. Impression systems with single-shot capture exhibited greater deviations at the tooth surface whereas high-frame rate impression systems differed more in gingival areas. Triple tray impressions displayed higher local deviation at the occlusal contact areas of upper and lower jaw.

Conclusions

Digital quadrant impression methods achieve a level of precision, comparable to conventional impression techniques. However, there are significant differences in terms of absolute values and deviation pattern.

Clinical relevance

With all tested digital impression systems, time efficient capturing of quadrant impressions is possible. The clinical precision of digital quadrant impression models is sufficient to cover a broad variety of restorative indications. Yet the precision differs significantly between the digital impression systems.

Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M (2009) Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 22:158–160PubMed

Small BW (2012) Revisiting impressions using dual-arch trays. Gen Dent 60:379–381PubMed

de Lima LM, Borges GA, Junior LH, Spohr AM (2014) In vivo study of the accuracy of dual-arch impressions. Journal of International oral Health: JIOH 6:50–55PubMedPubMedCentral

Reddy JM, Prashanti E, Kumar GV, Suresh Sajjan MC, Mathew X (2009) A comparative study of inter-abutment distance of dies made from full arch dual-arch impression trays with those made from full arch stock trays: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res Off Publ Indian Soc Dent Res 20:412–417. doi:10.4103/0970-9290.59437 CrossRef

Goldstein JH, Werrin SR (2007) InLab CEREC restorations from a dual-arch impression. Dent Today 26(62):64

Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Phillips KM (2003) A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a complete-arch custom tray. J Prosthet Dent 90:228–234. doi:10.1016/S0022391303002373 CrossRefPubMed

Cayouette MJ, Burgess JO, Jones Jr RE, Yuan CH (2003) Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays. Quintessence Int 34:189–198PubMed

Abrams SH (2002) Benefits of the dual-arch impression technique. Accurate impressions and fewer than 1 % remakes. Dent Today 21:56–59PubMed

Breeding L, Dixon D (2000) Accuracy of casts generated from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent 84:403–407. doi:10.1067/mpr.2000.110266 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Cayouette M, Burgess J, Jones RJ, Yuan C (2003) Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays. Quintessence Int 34:189–198PubMed

11.

Larson T, Nielsen M, Brackett W (2002) The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 87:625–627CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mormann W (2006) The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 137(Suppl):7S–13SCrossRefPubMed

13.

Reich S, Peltz I, Wichmann M, Estafan D (2005) A comparative study of two CEREC software systems in evaluating manufacturing time and accuracy of restorations. Gen Dent 53:195–198PubMed

14.

Mattiola A, Mormann W, Lutz F (1995) The computer-generated occlusion of cerec-2 inlays and onlays. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 105:1284–1290PubMed

15.

Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W (2014) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18:1687–1694. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y CrossRefPubMed

16.

Ender A, Mehl A (2014) In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. doi:10.3290/j.qi.a32244

17.

Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109:121–128. doi:10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W (2014) The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 145:542–551. doi:10.14219/jada.2014.23 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Jaschouz S, Mehl A (2014) Reproducibility of habitual intercuspation in vivo. J Dent 42:210–218. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2013.09.010 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Christensen G (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chandran D, Jagger D, Jagger R, Barbour M (2010) Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 20:243–249. doi:10.3233/BME-2010-0638 PubMed

22.

Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38:553–559. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015 CrossRefPubMed

23.

Luthardt R, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294PubMed

24.

Ziegler M (2009) Digital impression taking with reproducibly high precision. Int J Comput Dent 12:159–163PubMed

25.

Ender A, Mehl A (2014) Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision. J Vis Exp JoVE. doi:10.3791/51374 PubMed

26.

Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC (2013) Precision of intraoral dental impression with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:471–478. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017 CrossRef

27.

Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B (2013) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17:1759–1764. doi:10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Silva JS A e, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, Guth JF (2014) Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 18:515–523. doi:10.1007/s00784-013-0987-2 CrossRef

29.

Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF (2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization–a laboratory study. Dent Mater 30:400–407. doi:10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.006 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C (2014) A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 112:555–560. doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Wettstein F, Sailer I, Roos M, Hammerle C (2008) Clinical study of the internal gaps of zirconia and metal frameworks for fixed partial dentures. Eur J Oral Sci 116:272–279. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00527.x CrossRefPubMed

32.

Brosky M, Pesun I, Lowder P, Delong R, Hodges J (2002) Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 87:204–209CrossRefPubMed

33.

Delong R, Heinzen M, Hodges J, Ko C, Douglas W (2003) Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res 82:438–442CrossRefPubMed

34.

Rudolph H, Luthardt R, Walter M (2007) Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM technology. Comput Biol Med 37:579–587CrossRefPubMed

35.

Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28PubMed

36.

Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H (2014) Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 14:10. doi:10.1186/1472-6831-14-10 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Jedynakiewicz N, Martin N (2001) CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. Compend Contin Educ Dent 22:7–13PubMed

38.

Arnetzl G (2006) Different ceramic technologies in a clinical long-term comparison. Book title, Quintessenz London

39.

Reiss B, Walther W (2000) Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of cerec restorations. Int J Comput Dent 3:9–23PubMed

40.

Hoyos A, Soderholm K (2011) Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions. Int J Prosthodont 24:49–54PubMed

41.

Ceyhan J, Johnson G, Lepe X, Phillips K (2003) A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a complete-arch custom tray. J Prosthet Dent 90:228–234. doi:10.1016/S0022391303002373 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Rudolph H, Graf MR, Kuhn K, Rupf-Kohler S, Eirich A, Edelmann C, Quaas S, Luthardt RG (2015) Performance of dental impression materials: benchmarking of materials and techniques by three-dimensional analysis. Dent Mater J. doi:10.4012/dmj.2014-197 PubMed

43.

Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16:11–21PubMed

44.

Kim SY et al. (2013) Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 26:161–163CrossRefPubMed

45.

Ting-Shu S, Jian S (2014) Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. doi:10.1111/jopr.12218 PubMed

Title: In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions
Authors: Andreas Ender
Moritz Zimmermann
Thomas Attin
Albert Mehl
Publication date: 01-09-2016
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 7/2016
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 7/2016

Reliability and failure modes of narrow implant systems

Regulation of p53 under hypoxic and inflammatory conditions in periodontium

Effect of mold type, diameter, and uncured composite removal method on depth of cure

Local, systemic, demographic, and health-related factors influencing pathogenic yeast spectrum and antifungal drug administration frequency in oral candidiasis: a retrospective study

Soft tissue augmentation procedures at second-stage surgery: a systematic review

Inhibition of de novo plaque growth by a new 0.03 % chlorhexidine mouth rinse formulation applying a non-brushing model: a randomized, double blind clinical trial