Dataset Information

Accuracy of tooth-implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques.

Materials and methods

In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone-level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one-step tooth-implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral scanner, occlusal matrix, wax relief, closed-tray, and open-tray techniques. Each technique was repeated 15 times. The impressions were poured with dental stone, and the obtained casts were scanned by a laboratory scanner. The scan file of each technique was compared with the scan file of the original acrylic model by Geomagic Design X software. Data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, and Tamhane's post-hoc test (α = 0.05).

Results

For dental implant, intraoral scanning had the highest accuracy (0.1004 mm² ) followed by open-tray (0.1914 mm² ), occlusal matrix (0.2101 mm² ), closed-tray (0.2422 mm² ), and wax relief (0.2585 mm² ) techniques (p < 0.05). For the prepared tooth, wax relief (0.0988 mm² ) had the highest accuracy followed by occlusal matrix (0.1211 mm² ), open-tray (0.1663 mm² ), closed-tray (0.1737 mm² ), and intraoral scanning (0.4903 mm² ) technique (p < 0.05). For both dental implant and prepared tooth, occlusal matrix (0.2431 mm² ) had the highest accuracy followed by open-tray (0.2574 mm² ), wax relief (0.2693 mm² ), closed-tray (0.2862 mm² ), and intraoral scanning (0.3192 mm² ) technique (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The compared simultaneous tooth-implant impression techniques had comparable accuracy with no significant difference.

SUBMITTER: Fathi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10280615 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of tooth-implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques.

Fathi Amirhossein A Rismanchian Mansour M Yazdekhasti Atousa A Salamati Masih M

Clinical and experimental dental research 20230412 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>To compare the accuracy of five different tooth-implant impression techniques.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>In this in vitro, experimental study, an acrylic model containing one bone-level Straumann dental implant at the site of maxillary first molar and an adjacent second premolar prepared for a porcelain fused to metal restoration was used. Impressions were made from the model using five different one-step tooth-implant impression techniques including scanning with an intraoral ...[more]

PMID: 37042090

Similar Datasets

Project description:The advancement of intraoral scanners has allowed for more efficient workflow in the dental clinical setting. However, limited data exist regarding the accuracy of the digital impressions produced with various scanner settings and scanning approaches. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions at the crown preparation margin using different scanning resolutions of a specific intraoral scanner system. An all-ceramic crown preparation of a mandibular first molar was constructed in a typodont, and a scan (n = 3) was created with an industrial-grade laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) as the control. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 3) under three settings-high resolution (HR), standard resolution (SR), and combined resolution (SHR). Comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed with Geomagic Control X software to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the control scan along the preparation finish line. The scan time and number of images captured per scan were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson's correlation, and Dunnett's T3 test (? = 0.05). Significant differences were observed for scan time and for number of images captured among scan resolution settings (? < 0.05). The scan time for the SR group was, on average, 34.2 s less than the SHR group and 46.5 s less than the HR group. For discrepancy on the finish line, no significant differences were observed among scanning resolutions (HR: 31.5 ± 5.5 ?m, SHR: 33.2 ± 3.7 ?m, SR: 33.6 ± 3.1 ?m). Significant differences in discrepancy were observed among tooth surfaces, with the distal surface showing the highest discrepancies. In conclusion, the resolution of the intra-oral scanner is primarily defined by the system hardware and optimized for default scans. A software high-resolution mode that obtains more data over a longer time may not necessarily benefit the scan accuracy, while the tooth preparation and surface parameters do affect the accuracy.

Project description:ObjectiveWe compared tooth movement under maximum anchorage control with mini-screw implants in growing and non-growing patients.MethodsIn total, 15 adolescent (G1) and 19 adult (G2) patients with prognathic profiles were selected. All patients underwent first premolar extraction treatment with mini-screw implants for maximum anchorage control. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) data were obtained immediately after implant placement (T1) and at the end of anterior tooth retraction (T2). Tooth movement and root length changes of the maxillary first molar, canine, and incisors were evaluated with three-dimensional models constructed using CBCT data obtained before and after orthodontic retraction through the superimposition of stable implants.ResultsDistal movement of the molar crown was observed in G2, but mesial movement was observed in G1. Mesial tipping of the first molar (1.82 ± 6.76°) was seen in G1 and distal tipping (4.44 ± 3.77°) was observed in G2. For the canines, mesial crown tipping (0.33 ± 4.99°) was noted in G1 and distal crown tipping (8.00 ± 5.57°) was observed in G2. In adults, the lingual inclinations of the lateral and central incisors were 11.91 ± 7.01° and 11.47 ± 6.70°, with 0.99 ± 1.22 mm and 1.08 ± 1.20 mm root retraction, respectively. In adolescents, the torque changes were smaller (lateral incisors, 8.25 ± 10.15°; central incisors, 9.82 ± 8.97°) and the root retractions were 0.31 ± 1.81 mm and 0.77 ± 1.59 mm, respectively. Less shortening of the central incisor roots occurred in adolescents than in adults.ConclusionsTooth movements, such as anchor molar angular change, the canine tipping pattern, and the amount of incisor retraction, differed between adolescents and adults treated using the same anchorage with mini-screw implants, bracket prescription, and en masse retraction method. Anchorage strength of the first molars, canine movement patterns, and incisor retraction ranges are not determined by the anchorage device alone; growth and alveolar limitations also play roles.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of tooth-implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques.

Purpose

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Accuracy of tooth-implant impressions: Comparison of five different techniques.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets