0 225

Cited 5 times in

Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison

Authors
 Sven Mühlemann  ;  Elena A. Greter  ;  Ji‐Man Park  ;  Christoph H. F. Hämmerle  ;  Daniel S. Thoma 
Citation
 CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, Vol.29(9) : 931-936, 2018 
Journal Title
 CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH 
ISSN
 0905-7161 
Issue Date
2018
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To calculate the precision of the implant analog position in digital models generated from different computer-assisted design and computer-assisted manufacturing (CAD-CAM) systems compared to gypsum models acquired from conventional implant impressions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In five patients in need of a single implant crown, a within-subject comparison was performed applying four different manufacturing processes for the implant model. Each implant was scanned with three different intraoral scanners: iTero Cadent (ITE), Lava True Definition (LTD), and Trios 3Shape (TRI). All digital implant models were fabricated using the corresponding certified CAD-CAM workflow. In addition, a conventional impression was taken (CON) and a gypsum model fabricated. Three consecutive impressions were acquired with each impression system. Following fabrication, all implant models were scanned. The datasets were aligned by a repeated best-fit algorithm and the precision for the implant analog and the adjacent teeth was measured. The precision served as a measure for reproducibility. RESULTS: Mean precision values of the implant analog in the digital models were 57.2 ± 32.6 µm (ITE), 88.6 ± 46.0 µm (TRI), and 176.7 ± 120.4 µm (LTD). Group CON (32.7 ± 11.6 µm) demonstrated a statistically significantly lower mean precision value for the implant position in the implant model as compared to all other groups representing a high reproducibility. The mean precision values for the reference ranged between 31.4 ± 3.5 µm (TRI) and 39.5 ± 16.5 µm (ITE). No statistical significant difference was calculated between the four treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The conventional implant model represented the greatest reproducibility of the implant position. Digital implant models demonstrated less precision compared to the conventional workflow.
Full Text
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/clr.13349
DOI
10.1111/clr.13349
Appears in Collections:
2. College of Dentistry (치과대학) > Dept. of Prosthodontics (보철과학교실) > 1. Journal Papers
Yonsei Authors
Park, Ji-Man(박지만) ORCID logo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0018-1166
URI
https://ir.ymlib.yonsei.ac.kr/handle/22282913/164974
사서에게 알리기
  feedback

qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse

Links