Full-arch intraoral scanning: Comparison of two different strategies and their accuracy outcomes

Journal of Osseointegration

Volumn 10, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 65-74

  Mandelli, F ^a,b   Gherlone, E ^a,c   Keeling, A ^d   Gastaldi, G ^c,e   Ferrari, M ^f,g,h  

^a SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b Department of Fixed Prosthodontics ^*  (Japan)

^c VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^d UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^e Clinica San Rocco   (Italy)

^f UNIVERSITY OF SIENA   (Italy)

^g UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^h TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Accuracy; Intraoral digital impression; Intraoral scanning; Precision; Trueness

Indexed keywords

EID: 85050985445     PISSN: 2036413X     EISSN: 20364121     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.23805/JO.2018.10.03.01     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6: 22-38.
2. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthetic Dent 2008;100: 285-291.
3. Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth J-F. Implant Impression Techniques for the Edentulous Jaw: A Summary of Three Studies. J Prosthodont 2015;25: 146-150.
4. Michaels GC, Carr AB, Larsen PE. Effect of prosthetic superstructure accuracy on the osteointegrated implant bone interface. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;83: 198-205.
5. Jemt T, Book K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1996;11: 620-625.
6. Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6: 270-276.
7. Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodontic Society 2013;14: 16-23.
8. Mormann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137 Suppl: 7S-13S.
9. 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;38: 553-559.
10. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2012.
11. 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.
12. Vennerstrom M, Fakhary M, Von Steyern PV. The fit of crowns produced using digital impression systems. Swed Dent J 2014;38: 101-110.
13. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112: 1461-1471.
14. Pradies G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martinez-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent 2015;43: 201-208.
15. Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization-a laboratory study. Dent Mater 2014;30: 400-407.
16. Svanborg P, Skjerven H, Carlsson P, Eliasson A, Karlsson S, Ortorp A. Marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses generated from digital and conventional impressions. Int J Dentistry 2014;2014: 534382.
17. Almeidae 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: 515-523.
18. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression. J Prosthet Dent 2016.
19. 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;20: 283-289.
20. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144: 471-478.
21. Naidu D, Freer TJ. Validity, reliability, and reproducibility of the iOC intraoral scanner: a comparison of tooth widths and Bolton ratios. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144: 304-310.
22. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions- an in-vitro study. Int J Computerized Dentistry 2011;14: 11-21.
23. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18: 1687-1694.
24. Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16: 851-856.
25. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24: 111-115.
26. Joda T, Bragger U. Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25: 1304-1306.
27. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, Van Der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111: 186-194.
28. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29: 853-862.
29. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intraoral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 2012;7: e43312.
30. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. 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 2015;17 Suppl 1: e54-64.
31. Gimenez B, Pradies G, Martinez-Rus F, Ozcan M. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30: 56-64.
32. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of singletooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015.
33. Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradies G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAMfabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig 2016.
34. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Computerized Dentistry 2013;16: 11-21.
35. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115: 313-320.