In Vitro Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses.

UNLABELLED

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions when compared to conventional impressions, when performed on the abutment or implant level.

METHODS

One resin cast with six implants and another cast with six abutments were scanned with Primescan v5.1 (PS51), Primescan v5.2 (PS52), Trios 3 (T3), and Trios 4 (T4). Additionally, conventional impressions (A) were made, poured in gypsum, and digitized using a lab scanner (IScan D104i). A coordinate machine (Atos, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany) was used to generate the reference scan of both casts. For all scans, the position of the implants was calculated and matched with the reference scan. Angular and coronal measurements per implant were considered for trueness and precision.

RESULTS

For the implant-level model, PS52 performed significantly better in terms of trueness and precision compared to all other impressions, except for the angular trueness of A ( = 0.072) and the coronal trueness of PS51 ( = 1.000). For the abutment-level model, PS52 also performed significantly better than all other impressions, except for the coronal trueness and precision of A ( = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital impressions for full-arch implant supported prostheses can be as accurate as conventional impressions, depending on the intra-oral scanner and software. Overall, abutment level impressions were more accurate compared to implant level impressions.