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

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 patien...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research Vol. 29; no. 9; pp. 931 - 936
Main Authors: Mühlemann, Sven, Greter, Elena A., Park, Ji‐Man, Hämmerle, Christoph H. F., Thoma, Daniel S.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.09.2018
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Analog computers
Computer-Aided Design
Crowns
Dental Implants, Single-Tooth
Dental Impression Technique
Dental Models
Dental Prosthesis Design
Digital computers
Fabrication
Gypsum
Humans
Lava
Manufacturing
Manufacturing industry
Mathematical models
Middle Aged
Reproducibility
Scanners
Statistical analysis
Teeth
Workflow
ISSN:0905-7161, 1600-0501, 1600-0501
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-2
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.13349