Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: A randomized clinical trial

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Volumn 16, Issue 5, 2019, Pages

  Cappare, Paolo ^a   Sannino, Gianpaolo ^b   Minoli, Margherita ^a   Montemezzi, Pietro ^a   Ferrini, Francesco ^a  

^a VITA SALUTE SAN RAFFAELE UNIVERSITY   (Italy)

^b SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

Crestal bone loss; Digital impression; Digital workflow; Full arch rehabilitations; Immediate loading; Implant success; Implant survival; Implant prosthodontic restorations

Indexed keywords

ACRYLIC ACID RESIN;

BONE; MEDICINE; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESIN;

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVENTIONAL IMPRESSION; DIGITAL IMPRESSION; DIGITAL RADIOGRAPHY; FULL ARCH SCREW RETAINED MAXILLARY REHABILITATION; FULL MOUTH REHABILITATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; OSTEOLYSIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; RADIOLOGICAL PARAMETERS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SURVIVAL RATE; X RAY; BONE SCREW; DENTAL IMPRESSION; DEVICES; FEMALE; IMPLANT-SUPPORTED DENTURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; TIME FACTOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; BONE SCREWS; DENTAL IMPRESSION TECHNIQUE; DENTAL PROSTHESIS, IMPLANT-SUPPORTED; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; TIME FACTORS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 85062890627     PISSN: 16617827     EISSN: 16604601     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16050829     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Crespi, R.; Capparè, P. Immediate occlusal loading of full-arch rehabilitations: Screw-retained versus cement-retained prosthesis. An 8-year clinical evaluation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2014, 29, 1406–1411. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Bruschi, G.B.; Crespi, R. Localized management of sinus floor technique for implant placement in fresh molar sockets. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2013, 15, 243–250. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Bruschi, G.B.; Crespi, R. Transcrestal Sinus Floor Elevation: A Retrospective Study of 46 Patients up to 16 Years. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 759–767. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Agliardi, E.; Panigatti, S. Immediate rehabilitation of the edentulous jaws with full fixed prostheses supported by four implants: Interim results of a single cohort prospective study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2010, 21, 459–465. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Papaspyridakos, P.; Rajput, N. Digital Workflow for Fixed Implant Rehabilitation of an Extremely Atrophic Edentulous Mandible in Three Appointments. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2017, 29, 178–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Donovan, T.E.; Chee, W.W. A review of contemporary impression materials and techniques. Dent. Clin. N. Am. 2004, 48, 445–470. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Buzayan, M.M.; Yunus, N.B. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: A review of the literature. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2014, 14, 16–23. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Krishnan, V.; Tony Thomas, C. Management of Abutment Screw Loosening: Review of Literature and Report of a Case. J. Indian Prosthodont. Soc. 2014, 14, 208–214. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Hanif, A.; Qureshi, A. Complications in implant dentistry. Eur. J. Dent. 2017, 11, 135–140. [PubMed]
10. Amin, S.; Weber, H.P. Digital vs. Conventional full-arch implant impressions: A comparative study. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2017, 28, 1360–1367. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Gherlone, E.F.; Ferrini, F. Digital Impressions for Fabrication of Definitive “All-on-Four” Restorations. Implant Dent. 2015, 24, 125–129. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Gherlone, E.F.; Capparé, P. Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for “All-on-Four” Restorations. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2016, 31, 324–330. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Ting-Shu, S.; Jian, S. Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. J. Prosthodont. 2015, 24, 313–321. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Gjelvold, B.; Chrcanovic, B.R. Intraoral digital impression technique compared to conventional impression techniques. A randomized clinical trial. J. Prosthodont. 2016, 25, 282–287. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Ahlholm, P.; Sipila, K. Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 27, 35–41. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Ender, A.; Mehl, A. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015, 46, 9–17. [PubMed]
17. Ferrini, F.; Capparè, P. Digital versus Traditional Workflow for Posterior Maxillary Rehabilitations Supported by One Straight and One Tilted Implant: A 3-Year Prospective Comparative Study. BioMed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 4149107. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Joda, T.; Brägger, U. Complete digital workflow for the production of implant-supported single-unit monolithic crowns. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2014, 25, 1304–1306. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Schepke, U.; Meijer, H. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: Operating time and patient preference. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015, 114, 403.e1–406.e1. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Wismeijer, D.; Mans, R. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2014, 25, 1113–1118. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Gintaute, A.; Papatriantafyllou, N. Accuracy of computerized and conventional impression-making procedures for multiple straight and tilted dental implants. Int. J. Esthet. Dent. 2018, 13, 550–565. [PubMed]
22. Rech-Ortega, C.; Fernandez-Estevan, L. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: Direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med. Oral Patol. Oral Cir. Bucal 2019, 24, e89–e95. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Muhlemann, S.; Kraus, R.D. Is the use of digital technologies for the fabrication of implant-supported reconstructions more efficient and/or more effective than conventional techniques: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2018, 9, 184–195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Juodzbalys, G.; Sakavicius, D. Classification of Extraction Sockets Based Upon Soft and Hard Tissue Components. J. Periodontol. 2008, 79, 413–424. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Crespi, R.; Capparè, P. Midfacial Tissue Assessment of the Effect of Amount of Keratinized Mucosa on Immediate Temporarization of Fresh Socket Implants: 8-Year Follow-up. Int. J. Periodont. Restor. Dent. 2018, 39, 227–232. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Bruschi, G.B.; Crespi, R. Clinical study of flap design to increase the keratinized gingiva around implants: 4-year follow-up. J. Oral Implantol. 2014, 40, 459–464. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Gastaldi, G.; Vinci, R. Immediate versus delayed loading of a new conical connection implant in the esthetic zone: A randomized study with 2-year follow-up. J. Osseointegr. 2017, 9, 271–275.
28. Gherlone, E.F.; Capparè, P. Evaluation of resistance against bacterial microleakage of a new conical implant-Abutment connection versus conventional connections: An in vitro study. New Microbiol. 2016, 39, 59–66.
29. Maló, P.; de Araùjo Nobre, M. All-on-4® Treatment Concept for the Rehabilitation of the Completely Edentulous Mandible: A 7-Year Clinical and 5-Year Radiographic Retrospective Case Series with Risk Assessment for Implant Failure and Marginal Bone Level. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2015, 17, e531–e541. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. Mandelli, F.; Gherlone, E.F. Full-arch intraoral scanning: Comparison of the two different strategies and their accuracy outcomes. J. Osseointegr. 2018, 10, 65–74.
31. Flugge, T.V.; Schlager, S. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2013, 144, 471–478. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Abdel-Azim, T.; Zandinejad, A. The influence of digital fabrication options on the accuracy of dental implant-based single units and complete-arch frameworks. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implants 2014, 29, 1281–1288. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Albdour, E.A.; Shaheen, E. A novel in vivo method to evaluate trueness of digital impressions. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 117. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
34. Alikhasi, M.; Siadat, H. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type. Int. J. Dent. 2018, 2018, 3761750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Zimmermann, M.; Koller, C. A Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2017, 78, 466–471. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Park, G.H.; Son, K. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete-arch digital scan. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
37. Mangano, A.; Beretta, M. Conventional Vs Digital Impressions: Acceptability, Treatment Comfort and Stress Among Young Orthodontic Patients. Open Dent. J. 2018, 12, 118–124. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Nedelcu, R.; Olsson, P. Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: An in vitro descriptive comparison. BMC Oral Health 2018, 18, 27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Imburgia, M.; Logozzo, S. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017, 17, 92. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Joda, T.; Katsoulis, J. Clinical Fitting and Adjustment Time for Implant-Supported Crowns Comparing Digital and Conventional Workflows. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2016, 18, 946–954. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Joda, T.; Bragger, U. Digital vs. conventional implant prosthetic workflows: A cost/time analysis. Clin. Oral Implants Res. 2015, 26, 1430–1435. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
42. Yuzbasioglu, E.; Kurt, H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: Evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014, 14, 10. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. Gherlone, E.; Mandelli, F. A 3 years retrospective study of survival for zirconia-based single crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 1151–1155. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Treesh, J.C.; Liacouras, P.C. Complete-arch accuracy of intraoral scanners. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 382–388. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
45. Pesce, P.; Pera, F. Al Precision and Accuracy of a Digital Impression Scanner in Full-Arch Implant Rehabilitation. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2018, 31, 171–175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Penarrocha-Diago, M.; Balaguer-Martì, J.C. A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: A randomized controlled pilot clinical trial. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2017, 118, 596–603. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Mangano, F.; Gandolfi, A. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017, 17, 149. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. Gimenez, B.; Ozcan, M. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Van der Meer, W.J.; Andriessen, F.S. Application of intraoral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS ONE 2012, 8, e43312. [CrossRef]
50. Gimenez, B.; Ozcan, M. 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, e54–e64. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Seelbach, P.; Brueckel, C. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 17, 1759–1764. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
52. Ender, A.; Mehl, A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int. J. Comput. Dent. 2013, 16, 11–21. [PubMed]
53. Muller, P.; Ender, A. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int. 2016, 47, 343–349. [PubMed]
54. Medina-Sotomayor, P.; Pascual, M.A. Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202916. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Lee, S.J.; Macarthur, R.X., IV. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2013, 110, 420–423. [CrossRef] [PubMed]