A new title and a new focus: Cellular Reprogramming.

I. Wilmut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cell.2010.ED01

2010-02-11

Cellular Reprogramming

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

Jing Cheng,Haidong Zhang,Hailin Liu,Junying Li,Hom‐Lay Wang,Xian Tao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14252

2024-03-02

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract:Objectives The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry. Materials and Methods An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best‐fit method was then applied in the computer‐aided design (CAD) software to compute the three‐dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal–Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations. Results Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p .05). Conclusions Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant‐supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross‐arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.

engineering, biomedical,dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques

Mingyue Lyu,Ping Di,Ye Lin,Xi Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016

IF: 4.148

2021-01-01

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem. Intraoral scanning has benefits over conventional impression making, but whether scanning is sufficiently accurate for multiple implants is unclear.Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of digital scans acquired by using intraoral scanners from a small range to a complete arch with the conventional impression technique and to determine the influence of 2 different evaluation methods (best -fit algorithm versus absolute linear deviation) on the outcomes of accuracy assessment.Material and methods. A mandibular model with 8 implants (A-H) around an edentulous arch was used as the master model. Open-format standard tessellation language (STL) data sets (1 reference file from a highly accurate dental laboratory scanner, 10 files from an intraoral scanner, and 10 files from digitized conventional impressions at room temperature) were imported to a metrology software program, and 5 groups of scanning ranges (AB, FGH, CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH) were identified simulating different clinical situations. Two evaluation methods -root mean square values calculated from the best -fit algorithm and average value of linear discrepancies from absolute linear deviation -were used to describe the trueness values. The impacts of different scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods were tested by using a 3-way ANOVA. The effect of the scanning range on accuracy was further identified with 1-way ANOVA. The paired-sample t test was used to determine the differences of trueness values between the 2 methods in different groups.Results. The trueness values of the implant impressions were significantly affected by different scanning or impression methods (P<.001), evaluation methods (P<.001), and scanning ranges (P<.001) as independent variables. With use of the best -fit algorithm, deviations from the digital scans were significantly greater than those from the conventional impressions in cross -arch situations (groups CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH). With use of the absolute linear deviation method, statistically significant lower accuracy was found when larger areas were encountered (groups BCDEFG and ABCDEFGH). Use of the absolute linear deviation method resulted in a higher mean score of inaccuracy than that from the best -fit algorithm method in most situations.Conclusions. Scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods affected the dimensional accuracy (trueness) of scans or impressions with multiple implants. Digital scans had worse trueness values compared with those made with the conventional splinting open-tray technique when cross-arch implant impressions were acquired. (J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1017-23)
In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings

Julián Conejo,Thomas H. Yoo,Pablo J. Atria,Howard Fraiman,Markus B. Blatz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.012

IF: 4.148

2024-01-05

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Intraoral digital scan techniques have been widely used and sufficient evidence supports this technique in partially edentulous patients. However, the evidence supporting the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for edentulous patients is limited. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the accuracy of complete arch conventional pick-up implant impressions with open and closed trays, complete arch digital implant scans with IOSs, and 3-dimensional (3D) printed casts from complete arch digital implant scans. Material and methods Six implants were placed in a mandibular model. Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the implants, scanned with a reference scanner, and exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format (Group Control). Splinted open-tray pick-up impressions (Group OT, n=5) and closed-tray pick-up impressions (Group CT, n=5) were made, and stone casts were fabricated. Digital scans (Group DS, n=5) were made with an IOS, and the STL files were exported to fabricate 3D-printed casts (Group STL, n=5). Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the dental implant analogs in Groups OT, CT, and STL and scanned with the reference scanner. Using a 3D inspection software program, the recording techniques were compared with the control. Root mean square (RMS) values were calculated from the control, and superimposed digitized casts from different recording techniques. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences in RMS values, and theTukey post hoc test was used to determine difference between different groups. Results Group CT had the lowest mean dimensional difference when superimposed with Group Control, followed by Groups DS, OT, and STL. Significant differences were found in RMS values between Control and digitized casts fabricated with different techniques ( P <.05). The post hoc Tukey test revealed that Group DS ( P <.05) was significantly different from the other groups, while no significant difference was found among Groups CT, OT, and STL ( P >.05). Conclusions Based on the findings of the present study, 3D printed casts from digital scans have the same accuracy as stone casts from conventional impressions in complete arch implant cases. Intraoral scans had the highest accuracy. Complete arch pick-up impression techniques using dual-functioning scannable pick-up impression copings are as accurate as splinted complete arch pick-up impressions.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Molecular cloning, functional characterization and mRNA expression analysis of the murine chemokine receptor CCR6 and its specific ligand MIP‐3α 1

R. Varona,Á. Zaballos,J. Gutiérrez,P. Martín,F. Roncal,J. Albar,Carlos Ardavín,G. Marquez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-5793(98)01450-1

1998-11-27

Abstract:
[Discovery of EML4-ALK, a new gene responsible for lung cancer, and the development of molecular targeted therapy].

H. Mano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2169/NAIKA.99.837

2010-04-10

Abstract:
Accuracy of Multi-Implant Impressions Using 3D-Printing Custom Trays and Splinting Versus Conventional Techniques for Complete Arches.

Yanping Liu,Ping Di,Yijiao Zhao,Qiang Hao,Jiehua Tian,Hongyan Cui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7049

2019-01-01

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants

Abstract:PURPOSE:To assess the three-dimensional (3D) accuracy of multi-implant impressions for complete arches obtained using 3D printing technology, and to determine the clinical feasibility of this approach by comparing the results obtained with those obtained with conventional impression techniques.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A maxillary model matrix with four implant analogs was used to fabricate 10 stone reference models (control) to simulate edentulous patients. Ten 3D-printed impressions were made using polylactic acid custom open trays with component splinting (3D-printed group). To make 10 conventional impressions of the reference models, the poly(methyl methacrylate) open trays with splinting technique was used (conventional group). Impressions were poured with a type IV dental stone, which had been digitalized utilizing a high-resolution laboratory scanner after connecting the polymer scan bodies. Standard tessellation language (STL) datasets from the two groups of stone models were superimposed with the corresponding reference models. The interimplant distances and interimplant angulations for each implant pair were measured for the reference models and for the two test groups' definitive models, to assess 3D deviations. In addition, the mechanical properties of polylactic acid and poly(methyl methacrylate) tray materials were compared by means of three-point loading and tensile bond tests. The Student t test was used to compare the differences in implant position and mechanical properties between the two groups, while implant angulations were analyzed with Wilcoxon's rank-sum test, at P = .05.RESULTS:There was less implant-position deviation for the 3D-printed group (mean ± SD: 56.37 ± 12.52 μm) than for the conventional group (71.94 ± 18.86 μm) (P = .014). No significant differences were found in angular deviation between the two groups (P > .05). Flexural strength results suggested that polylactic acid (112.7 ± 1.62 MPa) was stronger than poly(methyl methacrylate) (104.0 ± 2.17 MPa; P < .0001). The tensile bond strength of polylactic acid (0.07 ± 0.005 MPa) was higher than that of poly(methyl methacrylate) (0.03 ± 0.004 MPa; P < .0001).CONCLUSION:The 3D-printing multi-implant impression technique could be an alternative to conventional impression techniques for complete arches.
Evaluation of Implant Impression Accuracy Using Different Trays and Techniques with a 3D Superimposition Method

Gokce Unsal,Alper Caglar,Mine Tural,Metin Orhan,Özer Alkan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.10655

2024-08-29

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions obtained using five different tray types and two techniques. Materials and methods: A partially dentate maxillary Kennedy Class II model was created as a reference model through 3D printing. Then, implant analogs 4.3 mm in diameter were placed at the first premolar, first molar, and second molar sites. Five types of trays were used to create impressions: (1) metal stock trays, (2) plastic stock trays, (3) custom trays fabricated using liquid crystal display (LCD), (4) custom trays fabricated using fused deposition modeling (FDM), and (5) custom trays fabricated using urethane dimethacrylate (UDMA) resin. Open and closed tray techniques were also compared. In total, 150 impressions were obtained. The reference model and impressions were scanned using a laboratory scanner. Additionally, the positional and angular deviations of implants with different tray types and techniques were evaluated using the superimposition method. Results: There was no statistically significant difference (P > .05) between the impression accuracy with the different tray types and impression techniques. The angular deviations with plastic and UDMA trays were greater than those with metal, FDM, and LCD trays. Angular deviation at the second molar was greater when using closed plastic trays compared to open plastic trays. The highest and lowest positional deviations were observed at the first molar implant with an open plastic tray impression (mean ± SD of 62.46 ± 28.54 mm) and a closed LCD tray impression (36.59 ± 29.93 mm). The greatest angular deviation was observed with an open FDM tray impression at the first premolar implant (0.067 ± 0.024 degree), and the lowest angular deviation was observed with a closed metal stock tray impression at the second molar implant (0.039 ± 0.025 degree). Statistical differences were detected using the Mann-Whitney U test for paired groups and the Kruskal-Wallis test for groups with more than three comparisons (P > .05). Conclusions: Plastic and metal stock trays or conventional and 3D-printed custom trays can be used to obtain implant impressions for maxillary partially edentulous arches with similar dimensional accuracy. The five tray types and two techniques may be safely used to obtain impressions of partially edentulous maxillary arches with three implants.
The small world of efficient solutions: empirical evidence from the bi-objective {0,1}-knapsack problem

C. G. Silva,J. Clímaco,Adiel Almeida Filho

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10288-009-0110-3

2010-06-01

4OR

Abstract:
In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study

Sonam Gupta,Aparna Ichalangod Narayan,Dhanasekar Balakrishnan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6306530

Abstract:Purpose. For a precise fit of multiple implant framework, having an accurate definitive cast is imperative. The present study evaluated dimensional accuracy of master casts obtained using different impression trays and materials with open tray impression technique. Materials and Methods. A machined aluminum reference model with four parallel implant analogues was fabricated. Forty implant level impressions were made. Eight groups (n = 5) were tested using impression materials (polyether and vinylsiloxanether) and four types of impression trays, two being custom (self-cure acrylic and light cure acrylic) and two being stock (plastic and metal). The interimplant distances were measured on master casts using a coordinate measuring machine. The collected data was compared with a standard reference model and was statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA. Results. Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was found between the two impression materials. However, the difference seen was small (36 μm) irrespective of the tray type used. No significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed between varied stock and custom trays. Conclusions. The polyether impression material proved to be more accurate than vinylsiloxanether impression material. The rigid nonperforated stock trays, both plastic and metal, could be an alternative for custom trays for multi-implant impressions when used with medium viscosity impression materials.
In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra‐oral scanning devices

Eirini Palantza,Nikitas Sykaras,Panagiotis Zoidis,Stefanos Kourtis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.13227

2024-03-29

Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry

Abstract:Aim The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of full‐arch conventional implant impressions using two different materials (A‐silicone and polyether) to full‐arch digital implant impressions produced from two intraoral scanning devices. Materials and Methods A master model was fabricated representing an edentulous mandible with four implants with internal connection placed at the sites of canines and first molars. The anterior implants were parallel to the residual ridge, while the two posterior implants had an angulation of 15° to the distal and 15° to the lingual respectively. The conventional technique was performed with open‐tray of non‐splinted impression copings. Two different impression materials were used, A‐silicone and polyether at monophase medium body consistencies. The digital impressions were obtained with the use of two different intraoral scanners, after the connection of scan bodies. A total of 10 impressions were produced for each of the four experimental groups. The conventional models as well as the master model were digitized using a high‐resolution laboratory scanner. The STL files of the models and of the intraoral impressions were imported in a powerful superimposition software, for the conduction of measurements in pairs of files. The software calculated the 3D deviations, as well as the linear and angular displacements among scan bodies at the digital files. For "trueness" measurements every STL file of each experimental group was superimposed to the digital master model, while for "precision" measurements all STL files of each experimental group were superimposed to each other. Results and Conclusions The accuracy of full arch mandibular implant impressions was influenced both by the impression technique used (conventional vs. digital) and the impression material used (A‐silicone vs. polyether) or the intraoral scanner used (Trios vs. Heron). In terms of "trueness," A‐silicone showed the highest impression accuracy with the lowest deviation values, followed by polyether and Trios, but the differences between the three groups were in the majority not statistically significant. Heron showed statistically lower accuracy results in all measurements compared to the other groups. In terms of "precision", conventional impressions with the use of A‐Silicone or polyether were statistically significantly superior to digital impressions with either scanner. A‐Silicone and polyether showed no statistically significant difference between them.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An<i> in</i><i> vitro</i> study

Yifang Ke,Yaopeng Zhang,Yong Wang,Hu Chen,Yuchun Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104561

IF: 4.991

2023-01-01

Journal of Dentistry

Abstract:Objectives: This study evaluated the accuracy of digital implant impressions with or without prefabricated landmarks compared with the conventional method in the edentulous mandible.Methods: An edentulous mandibular stone cast with implant abutment analogs and scan bodies in FDI #46, #43, #33, and #36 served as the master model. The scans captured with intraoral scanners (IOS) were divided into four groups: IOS-NT (no landmarks + Trios 4 scanner), IOS-NA (no landmarks + Aoralscan 3 scanner), IOS-YT (landmarks + Trios 4 scanner), and IOS-YA (landmarks + Aoralscan 3 scanner) (n=10). Landmarks were attached to the scan bodies with resin to improve scanning fluency. Conventional open-trayed technique (CNV) was performed with the 3D-printed splinting frameworks (n=10). The master model and conventional castings were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the former served as the reference model. Overall distance and angle deviations between scan bodies were measured to determine trueness and precision. The ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test compared CNV group to scans without landmarks, while a generalized linear model analyzed scan groups with and without landmarks.Results: Compared to the CNV group, the IOS-NA and IOS-NT groups showed higher overall distance trueness (p=0.009), and precision (distance, p<0.001 and angular, p<0.001). With landmarks, the IOS-YA group had higher overall trueness (distance, p<0.001 and angular, p<0.001) than the IOS-NA group, and the IOS-YT group has higher distance trueness (p=0.041) than the IOS-NT group. Moreover, the precision in distance and angle was significantly improved for IOS-YA and IOS-YT groups, compared with the IOS-NA (p<0.001) and IOS-NT (p<0.001) groups separately.Conclusions: Digital scans were more accurate than conventional splinting open-trayed impressions. Prefabricated landmarks significantly improved the accuracy of full-arch implant digital scans, regardless of the scanner used.
Effect of using scan body accessories and inter‐implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

Amal Ashry,Ahmed M. Abdelhamid,Salah Ezzelarab,Mohamed Moataz Khamis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13856

2024-04-11

Journal of Prosthodontics

Abstract:Purpose: To introduce a novel design for scan body accessory parts that are reusable, easy to attach and detach without permanent change of the scan body, and can be used with different inter‐implant distances to enhance the accuracy of complete arch implant scans. Materials and Methods: A maxillary polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) model with a soft tissue replica was fabricated with four implant analogs located at tooth positions 17, 13, 22, and 27 with 18, 25, and 30 mm inter‐implant distances. Four scan bodies (SBs) were attached to the implants. The model was scanned with a laboratory scanner to be used as a reference scan. A total of 40 scans were made with the same intraoral scanner and they were divided equally into two groups. Group A: Complete arch implant scans without scan body accessories (n = 20), and Group B: Complete arch implant scans with scan body accessories (n = 20). Intraoral scans were exported and superimposed on the reference scan using reverse engineering inspection software to be evaluated for 3D deviations, angular deviations, and linear deviations. Statistical analysis was performed with student t‐test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures followed by post hoc adjusted Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05. Results: The scan body accessories decreased both the 3D and linear deviations, with a statistically significant difference at SB4 for the 3D deviation (P = 0.043) and the linear inter‐implant discrepancies between SB1–SB2 and SB3–SB4 (P = 0.029 and < 0.001), respectively. However, there was no statistically significant difference in angular deviation between the study groups. Implant positions had significant differences within each group. Conclusions: A significant improvement in the accuracy of the complete arch implant digital impression was achieved by using the scan body accessories, particularly in reducing the 3D and linear deviations at the most distant implant positions.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Accuracy of Three Digital Scanning Methods for Complete-Arch Tooth Preparation: an in Vitro Comparison

Hanqi Gao,Xiaoqiang Liu,Mingyue Liu,Xu Yang,Jianguo Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.029

2022-01-01

Abstract:Statement of problem. The accuracy of digital scanning for complete dental arch and implant-supported complete-arch restorations has been reported. However, research addressing the accuracy of digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation is lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning, impression scanning, and cast scanning for complete-arch preparation.Material and methods. Maxillary and mandibular jaw typodonts with 28 teeth prepared for complete crowns were used as reference casts and digitized as reference data sets with a desktop scanner. Three digital scanning methods were applied. First, the reference casts were each scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner to generate the intraoral scanning group data sets. Second, the reference casts were each captured 10 times by using polyvinyl siloxane impression material, and the impressions were scanned with a desktop scanner to generate the impression scanning group data sets. Third, the impressions obtained in the impression scanning group were used to make gypsum casts which were then digitized with a desktop scanner to generate the cast scanning group data sets. Accuracy was determined by trueness and precision. Three-dimensional deviations of the prepared arches and anterior and posterior segments were measured from root mean square values and depicted on color-difference maps. Differences among test groups were analyzed by using a 1-way ANOVA and the post hoc Bonferroni test for normally distributed data or the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction for non-normally distributed data (a=.05).Results. The trueness of the maxillary arch was significantly higher in the impression scanning group than in the cast scanning and intraoral scanning groups (P<.05), but no significant differences were found among the 3 groups of the mandibular arch (P>.05). The precision of both arches was significantly higher in the impression scanning and intraoral scanning groups than in the cast scanning group (P<.05). Color maps showed horizontal symmetrical displacement in the intraoral scanning group relative to the reference data sets and within-group unilateral distal-end distortion. Irregular arch deformations were noted in the impression scanning group, and buccal and occlusal expansion occurred in the anterior-posterior direction in the cast scanning group. Pooled data for anterior teeth indicated that the trueness was lowest in the intraoral scanning group; however, that for the maxillary anterior teeth did not differ, while that for the mandibular anterior teeth differed significantly among groups (P<.05). For the posterior teeth, deviation was the lowest in the impression scanning group, and significant differences were noted in both arches among the 3 groups (P<.05).Conclusions. Of the methods tested, impression scanning was the most accurate for the creation of a digital cast of a complete prepared arch. (J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1001-8)
Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

Yuwei Yan,Xiao Lin,Xinxin Yue,Wei Geng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.033

Abstract:Statement of problem: Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported prostheses are technique-sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer an alternative to conventional impression making. Purpose: The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete arch implant scans and to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks fabricated with SPG. Material and methods: Laboratory scanning of gypsum casts, SPG, and IOS were performed for all participants. The data regarding the abutment platform were superimposed to calculate the 3D deviation of SPG and IOS compared with that of laboratory scanning as an evaluation of accuracy. The effect of implant position and number on accuracy was analyzed. The more accurate technique between SPG and IOS was used to fabricate the titanium frameworks, as was laboratory scanning. The passive fit of the frameworks was assessed by clinical examination, the Sheffield test, and panoramic radiography. Results: Seventeen participants (21 arches, 120 implants) were included. The accuracy of SPG ranged from 2.70 μm to 92.80 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 17.00 (11.68, 22.50) μm, which was significantly more accurate than that of IOS, ranging from 21.30 μm to 815.60 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 48.95 (34.78, 75.88) μm. No significant correlation was found between position or number of implants and 3D deviation in the SPG group. A weak positive correlation was found between implant number and 3D deviation in the IOS group. SPG and laboratory scanning were used to fabricate titanium frameworks. The passive fit between the frameworks and abutment platforms was confirmed. Conclusions: SPG, which was not affected by position or number of implants, was more accurate than IOS and comparable with laboratory scanning. The frameworks fabricated based on SPG and laboratory scanning were comparable in their passive fit. The SPG technique may be an alternative to laboratory scanning for complete arch implant scans.
Digital evaluation of a simplified technique for resin splinting used for multiunit implant restoration impressions: An in-vitro comparative study

Sherif El-Dakkak,Akram Neena

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2022.141408.2124

2022-10-01

Egyptian Dental Journal

Abstract:Objectives: This study aims to simplify the conventional resin-on-floss splinting technique and study the precision of this modified multiimplant impression technique. Material and Methods: Twenty-four (n=24) impressions were done for one mandibular completely edentulous model with six implants placed at the canines, first premolars and first molars. Group I (n=12) used the sectional resin-on-floss splinting technique. Group II (n=12) used the simplified tray-resin splint technique. The reference model and casts were scanned. Obtained STLs were aligned. Virtual implants on each cast were compared to reference model measuring angular and positional deviations. All variables and were compared at p value <.05. Results: Group I had significantly lower differences in angular deviations in vertical and horizontal axes of each implant except the left first molar implant, vertically, and the left first premolar implant, horizontally. The overall angular deviations of all implants were significantly lower in group I at the vertical axis. Group I had significantly lower positional deviations in XY axes of each implant except the left first molar implant. Group I showed significantly lower values on the left canine and left first premolar implant in the Z axis. The overall positional deviations of each implant of group I were significantly lower on the left canine and right first molar implants. The overall positional deviations of all implants were significantly lower in group I at the XY axes. Conclusions: Conventional resin-on-floss technique showed less deviation values. Values of both techniques remained within the accepted level of clinical misfit values proposed in literature.
Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An In Vitro Study

Nada El Osta,Noémie Drancourt,Chantal Auduc,Jean-Luc Veyrune,Emmanuel Nicolas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104892

IF: 4.991

2024-02-18

Journal of Dentistry

Abstract:Objectives To evaluate the accuracy of conventional polyether impressions and digital scans produced by five intra-oral scanners (IOSs) in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism for long-span implant-supported prostheses. Methods This in vitro study involved the impression of a maxillary model with free-end partial edentulism, in which six implants were placed before digitization using a desktop scanner to generate a digital reference model. Conventional impressions (Impregum Penta Soft, 3M) and digital scans with five IOSs (Trios 3 and 4, 3Shape; Primescan, Dentsply-Sirona; CS 3600, Carestream Dental; and i-500, Medit) were obtained. Conventional impressions were digitized using the same desktop scanner. Each digital STL file of conventional or digital impressions was superimposed over the reference STL file to enable comparison. Trueness was assessed by calculating angles and distance deviations. For precision, dispersions of values around their means were also measured. Results The mean distance deviation was significantly higher for conventional impressions (454.24 ± 334.70 μm) than for IOSs (ranging from 160.98 ± 204.48 μm to 255.56 ± 395.89 μm) ( p < 0.001). The mean angular deviation was high with conventional impressions (1.82 ± 1.51°), intermediate with CS 3600 (1.38 ± 1.42°), Primescan (1.37 ± 2.54°) and Trios 4 (1.30 ± 0.64°) scanners, and lower with I500 (0.97 ± 0.75°) and Trios 3 (1.01 ± 0.85°) scanners ( p < 0.001). The dispersion of distance values around their means was lowest with Trios 3 and i-500, followed by CS3600, Primescan, and Trios 4, respectively, and higher for conventional impressions ( p < 0.001). The dispersion of angular values was smallest with i-500, Trios 3, and Trios 4 compared with other groups and was highest with Primescan ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Within the limits of the current study, Trios 3 scanner exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by i-500, Trios 4, CS 3600, Primescan, and conventional impressions respectively. IOSs might be reliable for the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings. Clinical significance Passive adaptation of the implant-supported framework is a challenge when rehabilitating patients with maxillary free-end partial edentulism. While Conventional impressions remain a reliable and validated technique, but IOSs demonstrated higher accuracy, suitable for the fabrication of long-span implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arch.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial

Ammar Ghanim Jasim,Mona Galal Abo Elezz,Gilan Y Altonbary,Moustafa Abdou Elsyad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13336

Abstract: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.
Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study

Antoanela Garbacea,Ali F Alqahtani,Brian Goodacre,Abdulaziz Alhelal,Jaime Lozada,Mathew T Kattadiyil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00293

2022-07-11

Abstract:Accuracy of completely edentulous arch scanning with implant scan bodies has not been completely validated for intraoral scanners. For desktop laboratory scanners validations were found in the literature. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of scanning with splinted and unsplinted scan bodies on a completely edentulous maxillary arch with 6 implants. A maxillary edentulous master cast with 6 implants was used as control for all implant level impressions. 6 implants were digitally planned and placed at different angulation of 0, 0 17° and 30°. A contact coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to generate baseline linear measurements of the master cast. Four test groups included: 2 intraoral scanners Trios (3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and True Definition (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN), one industrial scanner Atos (Core optical 3D scanner) and one conventional impression group scanned with laboratory scanner Dental Wings 7 Series. Each scan recording was made with splinted and unsplinted scan bodies. Digital datasets of all measurements were compared with the CMM baseline values using PolyWorks® InnovMetric Software in order to assess the linear and angular deviations and determine the accuracy of complete arch digital impression. Factorial ANOVA showed significant effect with splinting, scanner type, inter-implant distance and implant angulation for linear deviations. Splinted scan bodies revealed elevated linear and angular deviation values for all scanners with significantly highest deviations for True Definition scanner. Significant correlation was found between inter-implant distance and linear deviation (r =0.45, P =<0.001) with increased linear deviations among all scanners, regardless of splinting. ( P <0.05). Significant effect on accuracy was seen for angular deviation with splinting, scanner type and implant angulation; significant difference was found between 0° and 30° implant angulation ( P =0.035) with more deviation with 30° implant angulation. The accuracy of the complete arch implant digital impression using splinted scan bodies was significantly reduced for measurements that crossed the arch midline. The digital impression technique using a broad splint design to connect scan bodies was not found to improve the scan accuracy for intraoral scanners.
Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

Motasem Bellah Bader Eddin,Özay Önöral

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.001

2024-07-26

Abstract:Statement of problem: Studies are sparse on how splinting scan bodies or incorporating 3-dimensionally (3D) printed scan aids influence the trueness of complete arch digital scans. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of multisite implant recordings obtained using 6 different methods on an edentulous mandible. Material and methods: A definitive cast of an edentulous mandible with 4 multi-unit analogs placed at different angles and interanalog distances was extraorally scanned, and the resulting data were saved as a reference file. To obtain experimental files, 6 distinct methods were used: conventional impression with splinted open-tray impression copings (IC), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting scan bodies or using any scan aids (SB), IOS with pattern resin-splinted scan bodies (PR), IOS with composite resin-splinted scan bodies (CR), IOS with 3D printed custom scan bodies (CSB), and IOS with 3D printed auxiliary apparatus (AA). The experimental files were aligned to the reference file in a metrology software program. The 3D comparison algorithm was run to quantify the root mean square estimate error (RMS). Scan bodies in the files were converted to hollow virtual cylinders, and the Cartesian coordinates of the lines passing through the centers of these cylinders were recorded to analyze angular (AD) and linear distortion (LD). LD was further analyzed along the x (∆X), y (∆Y), and z axes (∆Z). One-way ANOVAs with the Tukey HSD test were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). Results: AD at all sites, LD at all sites, and the RMS error showed significant differences (P<.05). The IC group showed the lowest AD values across all sites, followed by the AA, CSB, PR, CR, and SB groups. The SB group had the greatest LD values at all sites, while the IC group indicated the lowest LD values at all sites except the left anterior site. In terms of 3D distortions, the SB group had the largest RMS value, whereas the IC group showed the lowest RMS value. ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values also showed significant differences at all sites (P<.001) except for the ∆Z values at the right anterior site (P=.194). The highest mean ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values were recorded in the SB group except for the ∆Z measurement of the left posterior site. Conclusions: The IC group outperformed the other groups. The AA group exhibited distortion comparable with that of the IC group. Splinting scan bodies or using scan aids enhanced the trueness.
Comparison of the Accuracy of Fixture-Level Implant Impression Making with Different Splinting Techniques

Mehrdad Nateghi,Ramin Negahdari,Sahar Molaei,Ali Barzegar,Sepideh Bohlouli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/2959055

2021-10-14

Abstract:Objectives: The impression-taking technique is one of the most critical factors that not only prevents the shrinkage caused by polymerization but also enhances the accuracy of implant impressions. Also, choosing the right time of taking impressions after splinting implants is one of the important criteria that affects the impression-taking technique. Accordingly, the present study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of different splint methods for implant impressions made at different times. Methods: In this in vitro study, a two-piece metallic index was prepared, and the patient's jaw was simulated by placing self-cured acrylic resin in the lower part of the index. Then, two holes were made in the acrylic resin at a specific distance from each other, and the analogs were placed in these holes. Splinting of impression copings was carried out with autopolymerized acrylic resin (GC Pattern resin LS, GC America Inc., USA), and an open tray impression approach was performed. Thirty-six casts in three groups (n = 12) were fabricated from the acrylic model. After scanning the casts, the impression accuracy was compared between the three study groups by measuring the distance between the outer portions of the scan bodies screw-retained on implant analogs inside the cast using the Exocad software (2015.07 version). Group 1: splinting impression copings with autopolymerized acrylic resin and impression making immediately after the setting time (4 minutes); group 2: splinting and impression procedure after 17 minutes with splint sectioning and reconnection; group 3: splinting and impression procedure after 24 hours with splint sectioning and reconnection. The data were analyzed using SPSS 17 using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: The mean distance measured in group 1 was 19.14 ± 0.029 mm, which was significantly lower than the main model. The distances were 19.15 ± 0.039 and 19.159 ± 0.33 mm in groups 2 and 3, respectively. These two groups were not significantly different from the main model. Moreover, the mean distance measured in the three impression techniques was similar. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the measurements between group 2, group 3, and the main model. Therefore, dentists can make an impression after 17 minutes to reduce chair time.

A new title and a new focus: Cellular Reprogramming.

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques

In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings

Molecular cloning, functional characterization and mRNA expression analysis of the murine chemokine receptor CCR6 and its specific ligand MIP‐3α 1

[Discovery of EML4-ALK, a new gene responsible for lung cancer, and the development of molecular targeted therapy].

Accuracy of Multi-Implant Impressions Using 3D-Printing Custom Trays and Splinting Versus Conventional Techniques for Complete Arches.

Evaluation of Implant Impression Accuracy Using Different Trays and Techniques with a 3D Superimposition Method

The small world of efficient solutions: empirical evidence from the bi-objective {0,1}-knapsack problem

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study

In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra‐oral scanning devices

Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An<i> in</i><i> vitro</i> study

Effect of using scan body accessories and inter‐implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

Accuracy of Three Digital Scanning Methods for Complete-Arch Tooth Preparation: an in Vitro Comparison

Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

Digital evaluation of a simplified technique for resin splinting used for multiunit implant restoration impressions: An in-vitro comparative study

Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial

Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study

Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

Comparison of the Accuracy of Fixture-Level Implant Impression Making with Different Splinting Techniques