Conventional versus digital impressions for "All-on-Four" restorations

International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 324-330

  Gherlone, Enrico ^a   Capparé, Paolo ^a   Vinci, Raffale ^a   Ferrini, Francesco ^a   Gastaldi, Giorgio ^a   Crespi, Roberto ^a  

^a VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

Author keywords

Digital impression; Immediately loaded implants; Tilted implants

Indexed keywords

TOOTH IMPLANT;

ADULT; AGED; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL IMPRESSION; FEMALE; FLUORESCENCE IMAGING; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; JAW, EDENTULOUS; MALE; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; MIDDLE AGED; PANORAMIC RADIOGRAPHY; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURGERY; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TIME FACTOR; TOOTH IMPLANT; TOOTH IMPLANTATION; TOOTH PROSTHESIS; TOOTH RADIOGRAPHY;

ADULT; AGED; COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN; DENTAL IMPLANTATION, ENDOSSEOUS; DENTAL IMPLANTS; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL PROSTHESIS, IMPLANT-SUPPORTED; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMMEDIATE DENTAL IMPLANT LOADING; JAW, EDENTULOUS; MALE; MANDIBLE; MAXILLA; MIDDLE AGED; OPTICAL IMAGING; RADIOGRAPHY, DENTAL, DIGITAL; RADIOGRAPHY, PANORAMIC; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 84984972122     PISSN: 08822786     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.11607/jomi.3900     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Johnson GH, Craig RG. Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and a repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:484-490.
2. Millstein PL. Determining the accuracy of gypsum casts made from type IV dental stone. J Oral Rehabil 1992;19:239-243.
3. Sahin S, Cehreli M, Yalcin E. The influence of functional forces on the biomechanics of implant-supported prostheses-A review. J Dent 2002;30:271-282.
4. Wang T, Leu L, Wang J, Lin L. Effects of prosthesis materials and prosthesis splinting on peri implant bone stress around implants in poor-quality bone: A numeric analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002;17:231-237.
5. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:26-35.
6. Sones AD. Complications with osseointegrated implants. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:581-585.
7. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-1304.
8. Henkel GL. A comparison of fixed prostheses generated from conventional vs digitally scanned dental impressions. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2007;28:422-431.
9. Kurbad A. Impression-free production techniques. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:59-66.
10. Karl M, Rosch S, Graef F, Taylor T, Heckman S. Strain situation after fixation of 3-unit ceramic veneered implant superstructures. Implant Dent 2005;14:157-165.
11. Del'Acqua MA, Arioli-Filho JN, Compagnoni MA, Mollo Fde A Jr. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:226-236.
12. Lin WS, Harris BT, Morton D. The use of a scannable impression coping and digital impression technique to fabricate a customized anatomic abutment and zirconia restoration in the esthetic zone. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:187-191.
13. Joda T, Wittneben JG, Bragger U. Digital implant impressions with the "Individualized Scanbody Technique" (IST) for emergence profile support. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014 Mar;25(3):395-397. Epub 2013 Jan 4. doi: 10.1111/clr.12099.
14. Lin WS, Harris BT, Morton D. Use of implant-supported interim restorations to transfer periimplant soft tissue profiles to a milled polyurethane definitive cast. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:333-337.
15. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, et al. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010;38:553-559.
16. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR. Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:7-13.
17. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: Efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 Jan;24:111-115. Epub 2012 Feb 22.
18. Prosper L, Crespi R, Valenti E, Capparé P, Gherlone E. Five-year follow-up of wide-diameter implants placed in fresh molar extraction sockets in the mandible: Immediate versus delayed loading. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:607-612.
19. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: Conventional versus digital impressions-An in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
20. Gherlone E, Mandelli F, Capparè P, Pantaleo G, Traini T, Ferrini F. A 3 years retrospective study of survival for zirconia-based single crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions. J Dent 2014; 42:1151-1155. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.06.002.
21. Maintz JB, Viergever MA. A survey of medical image registration. Med Image Anal 1998;2:1-36.
22. Gherlone EF, Ferrini F, Crespi R, Gastaldi G, Capparé P. Digital impressions for fabrication of definitive "all-on-four" restorations. Implant Dent 2015;24:125-129. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000206.