Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Zagazig University, El-Zagazig University, Sharqia, Egypt.
Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Future University in Egypt, Fifth Settlement, End of 90 street, New Cairo, Cairo, Egypt.
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Nov 12;22(1):486. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02505-7.
This in vivo study aims to assess the accuracy of the digital intraoral implant impression technique, the conventional closed-tray impression technique, and open-tray impression techniques in a standardized method of data segmentation along with the best-fit algorithm to overcome the inconsistency of results of previous studies regarding implant impression techniques.
Sixteen implants were placed in eight patients. Each patient has undergone four impression techniques: direct intraoral scanning of the stock abutment, intraoral scanning using a scan body, conventional closed tray impression technique, and the conventional open tray impression technique. The conventional impressions were poured into stone casts with analogues and stock abutments and scanned using a desktop scanner. In intraoral scanning of the scan body, computer-aided design software was used for the replacement of the scan body with a custom-made abutment that is identical to the stock abutment, allowing comparison with the other impression techniques. The deviation in implant position between the groups was measured using special 3D inspection and metrology software. Statistical comparisons were carried out between the studied groups using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test.
The total deviation between groups was compared to the reference group represented by the intraoral scanning of the abutment. The total deviation was statistically significantly different (P = 0.000) among the different studied groups. The mean deviation was recorded as 21.45 ± 3.3 μm, 40.04 ± 4.1 μm, and 47.79 ± 4.6 μm for the intraoral scanning of the scan body, the conventional closed, and open tray, respectively.
For implant impressions in partially edentulous patients, intraoral oral scanning using a scan body significantly improves scanning and overall accuracy. Regarding conventional impressions, the closed-tray impression techniques showed more accuracy than conventional open-tray impressions.
Intraoral digital implant impression using scan body offers more accuracy than conventional implant impression techniques for recording posterior implant position in free-end saddle partially edentulous patients.
本体内植入物数字印模技术的体内研究旨在评估数字口腔内植入物印模技术、传统闭口托盘印模技术和开放式托盘印模技术的准确性,以及最佳拟合算法,以克服先前关于植入物印模技术的研究结果不一致的问题。
将 16 个种植体放置在 8 名患者中。每位患者都接受了四种印模技术:stock abutment 的直接口腔内扫描、使用扫描体的口腔内扫描、传统闭口托盘印模技术和传统开放式托盘印模技术。常规印模用模拟体和 stock abutment 倒入石铸模型中,并使用台式扫描仪进行扫描。在扫描体的口腔内扫描中,使用计算机辅助设计软件将扫描体替换为与 stock abutment 完全相同的定制 abutment,以便与其他印模技术进行比较。使用特殊的 3D 检查和计量软件测量组间植入物位置的偏差。使用单向方差分析(ANOVA)检验对研究组进行统计学比较。
将组间总偏差与以 abutment 口腔内扫描为代表的参考组进行比较。不同研究组之间的总偏差有统计学显著差异(P=0.000)。记录的平均偏差分别为扫描体的口腔内扫描、传统闭口和开放式托盘的 21.45±3.3μm、40.04±4.1μm 和 47.79±4.6μm。
对于部分无牙患者的植入物印模,使用扫描体的口腔内扫描可显著提高扫描和整体准确性。对于传统印模,闭口托盘印模技术比传统开放式托盘印模技术更准确。
在自由端鞍状部分无牙患者中,与传统的植入物印模技术相比,使用扫描体的口腔内数字植入物印模提供了更高的准确性,用于记录后牙植入物的位置。