Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Oral Investigations
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 3/2018

01-04-2018 | Original Article

Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure

Authors: Maria Menini, Paolo Setti, Francesco Pera, Paolo Pera, Paolo Pesce

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 3/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different impression techniques on multiple implants.

Material and methods

A master cast simulating a jaw with four implants was used.
Eight impression techniques were tested: open tray-polyether#1, open tray plus splint of impression copings with acrylic resin-polyether#1, closed tray-polyether#1, open tray-polyether#2, open tray-splint-polyether#2, closed tray-polyether#2, open tray-impression plaster, and digital impression (DI).
Five impressions of the master cast were taken with each traditional impression (TI) technique, pouring 35 sample casts. Three different clinicians took 5 DI each (n = 15).
A three-dimensional coordinate measurement machine (CMM) was used to measure implant angulation and inter-implant distances on TI casts. TI data and DI Standard Tessellation Language datasets were compared with the master cast.
The best and the worst impressions made with TI and DI were selected to fabricate four milled titanium frameworks. Passive fit was evaluated through Sheffield test, screwing each framework on the master cast. Gaps between framework-implant analogs were measured through a stereomicroscope (×40 magnification).

Results

Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found comparing the different impression techniques by CMM (p < 0.01). DI performed the best, while TI techniques revealed a greater variability in the results.
Sheffield test revealed a mean gap of 0.022 ± 0.023 mm (the best TI), 0.063 ± 0.059 mm (the worst TI), 0.015 ± 0.011 mm (the best DI), and 0.019 ± 0.015 mm (the worst DI).

Conclusions

Within the limits of this in vitro study, the digital impression showed better accuracy compared to conventional impressioning.

Clinical relevance

The digital impression might offer a viable alternative to traditional impressions for fabrication of full-arch implant-supported prostheses with satisfactory passive fit.
Literature
1.
Buzayan MM, Yunus NB (2014) Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 14:16–23CrossRefPubMed
2.
Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C (2008) The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 100:285–291CrossRefPubMed
3.
Shadid R, Sadaqa N (2012) A comparison between screw- and cement-retained implant prostheses. A literature review. J Oral Implantol 38:298–307CrossRefPubMed
4.
Pera P, Menini M, Bevilacqua M, Pesce P, Pera F, Signori A, Tealdo T (2014) Factors affecting the outcome in the immediate loading rehabilitation of the maxilla: a 6-year prospective study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 34:657–665CrossRefPubMed
5.
Menini M, Dellepiane E, Pera P, Bevilacqua M, Pesce P, Pera F, Tealdo T (2016) A luting technique for passive fit of implant-supported fixed dentures. J Prosthodont 25:77–82CrossRefPubMed
6.
Stimmelmayr M, Güth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F (2012) Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbodyfit—an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 16:851–856CrossRefPubMed
7.
Pera F, Pesce P, Bevilacqua M, Setti P, Menini M (2016) Analysis of different impression techniques and materials on multiple implants through 3-dimensional laser scanner. Implant Dent 25:232–237CrossRefPubMed
8.
Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD (2004) Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 15:466–473CrossRefPubMed
9.
Baig MR (2014) Accuracy of impressions of multiple implants in the edentulous arch: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 29:869–880CrossRefPubMed
10.
Humphries RM, Yaman P, Bloem TJ (1990) The accuracy of implant master casts constructed from transfer impressions. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 5:331–336PubMed
11.
De La Cruz JE, Funkenbusch PD, Ercoli C, Moss ME, Graser GN, Tallents RH (2002) Verification jig for implant-supported prostheses: a comparison of standard impressions with verification jigs made of different materials. J Prosthet Dent 88:329–336CrossRef
12.
Naconecy MM, Teixeira ER, Shinkai RS, Frasca LC, Cervieri A (2004) Evaluation of the accuracy of 3 transfer techniques for implant-supported prostheses with multiple abutments. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:192–198PubMed
13.
Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G (2003) Evaluation of the accuracy of three techniques used for multiple implant abutment impressions. J Prosthet Dent 89:186–192CrossRefPubMed
14.
Burawi G, Houston F, Byrne D, Claffey N (1997) A comparison of the dimensional accuracy of the splinted and unsplinted impression techniques for the Bone-Lockimplant system. J Prosthet Dent 77:68–75CrossRefPubMed
15.
Chang WG, Vahidi F, Bae KH, Lim S (2012) Accuracy of three implant impression techniques with different impression materials and stones. Int J Prosthodont 25:44–47PubMed
16.
Conrad HJ, Pesun IJ, DeLong R, Hodges JS (2007) Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent 97:349–356CrossRefPubMed
17.
Kim S, Nicholls JI, Han CH, Lee KW (2006) Displacement of implant components from impressions to definitive casts. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 21:747–755PubMed
18.
Choi JH, Lim YJ, Yim SH, Kim CW (2007) Evaluation of the accuracy of implant-level impression techniques for internal-connection implant prostheses in parallel and divergent models. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 22:761–768PubMed
19.
Lin WS, Harris BT, Zandinejad A, Morton D (2014) Use of digital data acquisition and CAD/CAM technology for the fabrication of a fixed complete dental prosthesis on dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 111:1–5CrossRefPubMed
20.
Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G (2015) Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17:54–64CrossRef
21.
Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B (2012) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17:1759–1764CrossRefPubMed
22.
Patzelt SB, Bishti S, Stampf S, Att W (2014) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18:1687–1694CrossRefPubMed
23.
Ting-Shu S, Jian S (2015) Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont 24:313–321CrossRefPubMed
24.
Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Güth JF (2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization-a laboratory study. Dent Mater 30:400–407CrossRefPubMed
25.
Lee SJ, Gallucci GO (2013) Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 24:111–115CrossRefPubMed
26.
Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC (2013) Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:471–478CrossRef
27.
Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA (2014) Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 25:1113–1118CrossRefPubMed
28.
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 38:553–559CrossRefPubMed
29.
30.
Baig MR (2014) Multi-unit implant impression accuracy: a review of the literature. Quintessence Int 45:39–51PubMed
31.
Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR (1999) Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 81:7–13CrossRefPubMed
32.
Hoods-Moonsammy VJ, Owen P, Howes DG (2014) A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 27:433–438CrossRefPubMed
33.
Assif D, Nissan J, Varsano I, Singer A (1999) Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: effect of splinting material. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 14:885–888PubMed
34.
Burns J, Palmer R, Howe L, Wilson R (2003) Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays. J Prosthet Dent 89:250–255CrossRefPubMed
35.
Shen C (2003) Impression materials. In: Anusavice KJ (ed) Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials, 11th edn. Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 205–254
36.
Mojon P, Oberholzer JP, Meyer JM, Belser UC (1990) Polymerization shrinkage of index and pattern acrylic resins. J Prosthet Dent 64:684–688CrossRefPubMed
37.
Gibbs SB, Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Ahuja S (2014) Comparison of polymerization shrinkage of pattern resins. J Prosthet Dent 112:293–298CrossRefPubMed
38.
Nejatidanesh F, Shakibamehr AH, Savabi O (2016) Comparison of marginal and internal adaptation of CAD/CAM and conventional cement retained implant-supported single crowns. Implant Dent 25:103–108CrossRefPubMed
39.
Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109:121–128CrossRefPubMed
40.
Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2013) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17:1201–1208CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure
Authors
Maria Menini
Paolo Setti
Francesco Pera
Paolo Pera
Paolo Pesce
Publication date
01-04-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2018

Clinical Oral Investigations 3/2018 Go to the issue

Original Article

Contour changes after guided bone regeneration of large non-contained mandibular buccal bone defects using deproteinized bovine bone mineral and a porcine-derived collagen membrane: an experimental in vivo investigation

Original Article

Doxycycline-loaded nanotube-modified adhesives inhibit MMP in a dose-dependent fashion

Original Article

Effect of different endodontic sealers and time of cementation on push-out bond strength of fiber posts

Original Article

Bacterial penetration into filled root canals exposed to different pressures and to the oral environment—in vivo analysis

Original Article

Efficacy of resin infiltration of proximal caries in primary molars: 1-year follow-up of a split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Original Article

Influence of obesity on experimental periodontitis in rats: histopathological, histometric and immunohistochemical study