Search

Purpose: To evaluate the scanning strategies affecting the accuracy of virtual interocclusal records (VIR) in partially edentulous arches using an intraoral scanner in vitro. Methods: A reference model of a partially edentulous arch with implant analogs in positions 45,46 and 47 was constructed. Six pairs of 1-mm diameter metal beads were placed on the gingival tissue as markers for measurement. Four scanning strategies were tested: Quadrant-arch Scan (group 1), Quadrant-arch Scan with Auxiliary occlusal devices (AOD) (group 2), Full-arch Scan (group 3), Full-arch Scan with AOD (group 4). The model was digitalized with a lab scanner as a reference and 15 scans were obtained for each group. The accuracy of VIR was assessed by comparing the experiment data to the reference digital model. Results: The mean surface deviations of VIR for Groups 1–4 were 89.4 ± 105.2 μm,95.6 ± 132.8 μm,152.3 ± 159.7 μm and 107.6 ± 138.2 μm respectively. Quadrant-arch scans resulted in lower errors of VIR than full-arch scan (P < 0.001). There was a significant interaction between the AOD and scanning span (P = 0.017). The Quadrant-arch scan with AOD (group 2) produced the least error in the distally extended edentulous area. Conclusions: Quadrant-arch scans showed better accuracy of VIR than full-arch scans across all tooth positions. The combination of AOD and quadrant-arch scan further enhances VIR accuracy in distally extended edentulous areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the scanning strategies affecting the accuracy of virtual interocclusal records (VIR) in partially edentulous arches using an intraoral scanner in vitro. Methods A reference model of a partially edentulous arch with implant analogs in positions 45,46 and 47 was constructed. Six pairs of 1-mm diameter metal beads were placed on the gingival tissue as markers for measurement. Four scanning strategies were tested: Quadrant-arch Scan (group 1), Quadrant-arch Scan with Auxiliary occlusal devices (AOD) (group 2), Full-arch Scan (group 3), Full-arch Scan with AOD (group 4). The model was digitalized with a lab scanner as a reference and 15 scans were obtained for each group. The accuracy of VIR was assessed by comparing the experiment data to the reference digital model. Results The mean surface deviations of VIR for Groups 1–4 were 89.4 ± 105.2 μm,95.6 ± 132.8 μm,152.3 ± 159.7 μm and 107.6 ± 138.2 μm respectively. Quadrant-arch scans resulted in lower errors of VIR than full-arch scan (P

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant‐level conventional and digital impressions for atrophied maxillary ridges. Materials and Methods: Twelve participants with atrophied edentulous maxillary ridges received six implants. Six months later and after soft tissue maturation around healing abutments, a control cast was constructed using the final passive restoration for each patient. Two types of implant‐level impression techniques were carried out for each patient: (1) conventional (splinted open‐tray) impression technique and (2) digital impression technique. For both techniques, scan bodies were labeled from the most distal implant on the left side (A, B, C, D, E, and F) and scanning was made. Accuracy of both techniques was measured using in vitro (two‐dimensional and three‐dimensional) and in vivo (clinical) methods. Two‐dimensional methods include measurement of the difference in linear distances AB, AC AD, AE, and AF. Geomagic software was used to assess the three‐dimensional deviation between the two impression techniques using the superimposition of standard tessellation language files. The incidence and percentage of nonpassive frameworks and framework misfits of final restorations for both types of impression techniques were assessed using the single screw test. Results: For all distances, digital impressions recorded significantly higher deviation from control measurements than conventional impressions. The highest two‐dimensional linear deviation was noted for AF distance and the lowest difference was noted for AB distance. For all scan bodies, digital impressions recorded significantly higher three‐dimensional deviation than conventional impressions. The highest three‐dimensional deviation was noted with scan bodies C and D. Digital impressions recorded a significantly higher incidence of nonpassive frameworks and framework misfits than conventional impressions. [Correction added on 11 June 2024, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, "digital impressions" was changed to "conventional impressions" in this version.] Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that the conventional implant‐level impression technique showed greater in vitro and in vivo accuracy than the digital impression technique when used for full‐arch maxillary fixed restorations on inclined implants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Objectives To compare the crown accuracy and time efficiency of a complete digital workflow, utilizing an auxiliary occlusal device and IO scanning, with a conventional workflow, for multiple implant-supported single crowns. Materials and methods 24 patients with two adjacent posterior implants were included. 12 patients were randomly assigned to digital workflow group, involving intra-oral scanning with an auxiliary occlusal device and manufacture of customized abutments and zirconia single crowns (test group). The other 12 were assigned to the conventional workflow (control group), involving conventional impression and CAD-CAM crowns based on stone casts. Crown scanning was done before and after clinical adjustment using an intraoral scanner. Two 3D digital models were overlapped to assess dimension changes. Chair-side and laboratory times for the entire workflow were recorded and a linear mixed model and Independent-sample t tests were used for the statistical analysis. Results The maximum occlusal deviation was 279.67 ± 112.17 μm and 479.59 ± 203.63 μm in the test and control group, respectively (p

The choice of a splinted or nonsplinted implant-supported prosthesis should be based on solid scientific evidence that considers the conditions and needs of each patient. This review elaborates on the factors that directly influence clinical decisions between splinted or nonsplinted dental implants. Digital and manual searches of the published literature were conducted to identify studies that examined splinted prostheses (SPs) and nonsplinted prostheses (NSPs). The search terms used, alone or in combination, were "splinting prosthesis," "nonsplinting prosthesis," "prosthetic design," "stress distribution in dental implant," "implant loading," "implant occlusion," and "crestal bone resorption." Ninety-four studies were selected to compare and address the details emphasized in this study. Thirty-four reported articles were not directly related to restoration design but were reviewed to better understand the influence of mechanical risk factors, finite element analysis limits, and criteria for implant survival and treatment success. There are advantages and disadvantages of splinting implants together. NSPs are the ideal choice because they resemble natural teeth. Splinting a restored implant will cause the implant to appear as part of one unit and is indicated in more compromised situations, unfavorable conditions, or when pontic spaces and cantilevers are needed in implant prostheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]