In Vivo Complete-Arch Implant Digital Impressions: Comparison of the Precision of Three Optical Impression Systems

Jaime Orejas-Perez, Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez, Ignacio Ortiz-Collado, Israel J. Thuissard and Andrea Santamaria-Laorden
Additional contact information
Jaime Orejas-Perez: Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain
Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez: Department of Implantology and Prosthetic Dentistry, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam ACTA, 1081 LA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Ignacio Ortiz-Collado: Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain
Israel J. Thuissard: Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Medicine, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain
Andrea Santamaria-Laorden: Faculty of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 7, 1-17

Abstract: (1) Multiple in vitro studies reported insufficient accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for complete-arch multiple implant impression. The aim of the study is to analyze the precision of three IOSs, PIC dental (Pic dental, Iditec North West SL), TRIOS 3 (3Shape), and True Definition (Midmark Corporation) and the influence of several factors in the edentulous complete maxillary and mandibular arch. (2) A fully edentulous patient with eight implants in the maxillary and in the mandibular jaw was selected. Five impressions were taken per system and arch. A suprastructure was designed on each digital working cast. The precision was analyzed comparing each of the 28 distances and seven relative angulations of the abutments of all the designed suprastructures. The descriptive statistics, the Student’s t -test, and the ANOVA test were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). (3) Significant differences were observed when comparing the IOSs in some of the distances and angulations. (4) The increase in the distance between implants affected the precision of T and TD but not the PIC system. The type of arch did not affect the PIC precision, but the T and TD systems performed worse in the mandibular arch. The system with the best precision was the PIC, followed by TD, and then T.

Keywords: optical impression; intraoral scanners; edentulous; complete arch; dental implants; precision (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4300/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/4300/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:4300-:d:786604

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().