Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions

Sang J. Lee, Rebecca Betensky, Grace E. Gianneschi, German O. Gallucci

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: The accuracy of digital impressions greatly influences their clinical viability in implant restorations. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of gypsum models acquired from the conventional implant impression to digitally milled models created from direct digitalization by three-dimensional analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty gypsum and 30 digitally milled models, impressed directly from a reference model, were prepared. The models and reference model were scanned by a laboratory scanner, and 30 surface tessellation language datasets from each group were imported to an inspection software program. The datasets were aligned to the reference dataset by a repeated best-fit algorithm, and 10 specified contact locations of interest were measured in mean volumetric deviations. The areas were pooled by cusps, fossae, interproximal contacts, horizontal and vertical axes of implant position and angulation. The pooled areas were statistically analysed by comparing each group to the reference model to investigate the mean volumetric deviations accounting for accuracy and standard deviations for precision. Results: Milled models from digital impressions had comparable accuracy to gypsum models from conventional impressions. However, differences in fossae and vertical displacement of the implant position from the gypsum and digitally milled models compared to the reference model exhibited statistical significance (P < 0.001, P = 0.020, respectively). Conclusion: Milled models from digital impression are comparable to gypsum models from conventional impression.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)715-719
Number of pages5
JournalClinical Oral Implants Research
Volume26
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Calcium Sulfate
Statistical Models
Language
Software
Datasets

Keywords

  • Biomaterial
  • Conventional impression
  • Digital impression
  • Implant restoration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oral Surgery

Cite this

Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. / Lee, Sang J.; Betensky, Rebecca; Gianneschi, Grace E.; Gallucci, German O.

In: Clinical Oral Implants Research, Vol. 26, No. 6, 01.01.2015, p. 715-719.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lee, Sang J. ; Betensky, Rebecca ; Gianneschi, Grace E. ; Gallucci, German O. / Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. In: Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2015 ; Vol. 26, No. 6. pp. 715-719.
@article{f8d944593a9c46cab57cabf1610a92c7,
title = "Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions",
abstract = "Objective: The accuracy of digital impressions greatly influences their clinical viability in implant restorations. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of gypsum models acquired from the conventional implant impression to digitally milled models created from direct digitalization by three-dimensional analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty gypsum and 30 digitally milled models, impressed directly from a reference model, were prepared. The models and reference model were scanned by a laboratory scanner, and 30 surface tessellation language datasets from each group were imported to an inspection software program. The datasets were aligned to the reference dataset by a repeated best-fit algorithm, and 10 specified contact locations of interest were measured in mean volumetric deviations. The areas were pooled by cusps, fossae, interproximal contacts, horizontal and vertical axes of implant position and angulation. The pooled areas were statistically analysed by comparing each group to the reference model to investigate the mean volumetric deviations accounting for accuracy and standard deviations for precision. Results: Milled models from digital impressions had comparable accuracy to gypsum models from conventional impressions. However, differences in fossae and vertical displacement of the implant position from the gypsum and digitally milled models compared to the reference model exhibited statistical significance (P < 0.001, P = 0.020, respectively). Conclusion: Milled models from digital impression are comparable to gypsum models from conventional impression.",
keywords = "Biomaterial, Conventional impression, Digital impression, Implant restoration",
author = "Lee, {Sang J.} and Rebecca Betensky and Gianneschi, {Grace E.} and Gallucci, {German O.}",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/clr.12375",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "715--719",
journal = "Clinical Oral Implants Research",
issn = "0905-7161",
publisher = "Blackwell Munksgaard",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions

AU - Lee, Sang J.

AU - Betensky, Rebecca

AU - Gianneschi, Grace E.

AU - Gallucci, German O.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Objective: The accuracy of digital impressions greatly influences their clinical viability in implant restorations. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of gypsum models acquired from the conventional implant impression to digitally milled models created from direct digitalization by three-dimensional analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty gypsum and 30 digitally milled models, impressed directly from a reference model, were prepared. The models and reference model were scanned by a laboratory scanner, and 30 surface tessellation language datasets from each group were imported to an inspection software program. The datasets were aligned to the reference dataset by a repeated best-fit algorithm, and 10 specified contact locations of interest were measured in mean volumetric deviations. The areas were pooled by cusps, fossae, interproximal contacts, horizontal and vertical axes of implant position and angulation. The pooled areas were statistically analysed by comparing each group to the reference model to investigate the mean volumetric deviations accounting for accuracy and standard deviations for precision. Results: Milled models from digital impressions had comparable accuracy to gypsum models from conventional impressions. However, differences in fossae and vertical displacement of the implant position from the gypsum and digitally milled models compared to the reference model exhibited statistical significance (P < 0.001, P = 0.020, respectively). Conclusion: Milled models from digital impression are comparable to gypsum models from conventional impression.

AB - Objective: The accuracy of digital impressions greatly influences their clinical viability in implant restorations. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of gypsum models acquired from the conventional implant impression to digitally milled models created from direct digitalization by three-dimensional analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty gypsum and 30 digitally milled models, impressed directly from a reference model, were prepared. The models and reference model were scanned by a laboratory scanner, and 30 surface tessellation language datasets from each group were imported to an inspection software program. The datasets were aligned to the reference dataset by a repeated best-fit algorithm, and 10 specified contact locations of interest were measured in mean volumetric deviations. The areas were pooled by cusps, fossae, interproximal contacts, horizontal and vertical axes of implant position and angulation. The pooled areas were statistically analysed by comparing each group to the reference model to investigate the mean volumetric deviations accounting for accuracy and standard deviations for precision. Results: Milled models from digital impressions had comparable accuracy to gypsum models from conventional impressions. However, differences in fossae and vertical displacement of the implant position from the gypsum and digitally milled models compared to the reference model exhibited statistical significance (P < 0.001, P = 0.020, respectively). Conclusion: Milled models from digital impression are comparable to gypsum models from conventional impression.

KW - Biomaterial

KW - Conventional impression

KW - Digital impression

KW - Implant restoration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928213705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928213705&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/clr.12375

DO - 10.1111/clr.12375

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 715

EP - 719

JO - Clinical Oral Implants Research

JF - Clinical Oral Implants Research

SN - 0905-7161

IS - 6

ER -