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