CS3600■口扫数字化印模技术与传统硅橡胶印模技术在磨牙全瓷冠修复中的比较

目的:比较数字化口内直接印模技术与传统精细硅橡胶印模技术在磨牙全瓷冠修复中的效果。方法:研究选取2019年10月~2020年1月于华中科技大学同济医学院附属同济医院口腔修复科行磨牙全瓷单冠修复治疗的患者32例,共计36颗患牙。实验组18颗患牙采用CS3600^■口内扫描仪制取数字化印模,对照组18颗患牙采用传统硅橡胶印模技术制取印模。记录两组取模时间、戴牙时间及患者舒适度,修复完成2个月参照改良美国公共卫生署(USPHS)标准对修复体进行评价。结果:实验组取模时间更短、取模更舒适;制作的修复体戴牙时间更短、修复体边缘适合性更好(P<0.05)。结论:在磨牙全瓷冠的修复治疗中,CS3600^■口内扫描技术在取模时间、取模舒适度、戴牙时间和修复体边缘适合性等方面都优于传统硅橡胶印模技术。     

Accuracy of three implant impression techniques with different impression materials and stones

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of casts made using three different impression techniques to obtain an accurate definitive cast for fabrication of multiple-implant prostheses. Twelve experimental groups were formed combining the following conditions: three impression techniques, two impression materials, and two cast materials. The main effects of the three factors were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance using the full factorial general linear model between factors. The results showed that there were no significant differences in mean values for the transferred dimensions between the control and experimental groups. None of the measurements in the horizontal plane of the definitive casts demonstrated significant differences among the impression techniques with different impression and cast materials (P > .01).     

摄影测量与传统印模技术制取牙列缺失种植修复印模精度的比较研究

目的:通过体外实验对比摄影测量与传统印模技术制取牙列缺失种植修复印模的精度。方法:选择1例2019年9月就诊于首都医科大学口腔医学院种植中心的74岁男性上颌牙列缺失患者的上颌石膏模型,其上含螺丝固位基台替代体8个。通过开窗夹板式印模复制该石膏模型,将复制模型作为参考模型。由同1名主治医师用两种方法制取参考模型种植体基台...     

Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM. There is much discussion in the dental literature concerning the effect of the impression technique on the accuracy of cast restorations. PURPOSE. This study assessed the accuracy of 3 putty-wash impression techniques using the same impression material (polyvinyl siloxane) in a laboratory model. MATERIAL AND METHODS. The 3 putty-wash impression techniques used were (1) 1-step (putty and wash impression materials used simultaneously); (2) 2-step with 2-mm relief (putty first as a preliminary impression to create 2-mm wash space with prefabricated copings. In the second step, the wash stage was carried out); and (3) 2-step technique with a polyethylene spacer (plastic spacer used with the putty impression first and then the wash stage). For each technique, 15 impressions were made of a stainless steel master model that contained 3 complete crown abutment preparations, which were used as the positive control. Accuracy was assessed by measuring 6 dimensions (intraabutment and interabutment) on stone dies poured from impressions of the master model. RESULTS. One-way analysis of variance showed statistically significant differences among the 3 putty-wash impression techniques, for all intraabutment and interabutment measurements (P <.001). Overall discrepancies of the 2-step technique with 2-mm relief putty-wash impression technique were significantly smaller than that in the 1-step and polyethylene putty-wash impression techniques. CONCLUSION. The polyvinyl siloxane 2-step, 2-mm, relief putty-wash impression technique was the most accurate for fabricating stone dies.     

Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques

Objectives

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal and internal fit of CAD/CAM-generated four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses made with digital and conventional impressions.

Materials and method

A titanium master model was used. For group conventional impression (CI), 12 polyether impressions of the master model with Impregum^TM were made. For group digital impression (DI), 12 digital impressions of the master model using Lava^TM C.O.S. system were made. The replica technique was applied. The Mann–Whitney U statistical test was applied to detect statistical differences between the groups, in terms of marginal and internal fit. Face-by-face comparisons between groups were also carried out.

Results

Groups DI and CI presented mean marginal fit of 63.96 and 65.33 μm, respectively, and showed no statistically significant difference. Groups DI and CI presented significantly different internal fit with mean values of 58.46 and 65.94 μm, respectively. Group DI showed statistically significantly lower values for marginal and internal fit on premolar mesial face, and on molar distal and palatal faces.

Conclusions

Frameworks fabricated from digital and conventional impressions showed clinically acceptable marginal fit. Frameworks fabricated from digital impression demonstrated better internal fit than ones fabricated from conventional impression. Reviewing each retainer face, digital impression showed better marginal and internal fit at the premolar mesial and molar distal faces.

Clinical relevance

The results of this in vitro study show that digital impressions made with the Lava^TM C.O.S. system and its digital workflow are suitable for fabricating four-unit zirconia frameworks, with regard to marginal and internal fit requirements.     

Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Accurate recording of implant locations is required so that definitive restorations are properly supported and do not place additional stress on the implants. Angulated implants may result in inaccurate impressions, and the impression technique may affect the accuracy of the definitive cast. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect the combined interaction of impression technique, implant angulation, and implant number has on the accuracy of implant definitive casts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One definitive stone cast was fabricated for each of 6 experimental groups and 1 control group. All 7 definitive casts had 3 implants arranged in a triangular pattern creating a plane. In the 6 experimental groups, the center implant was perpendicular to the plane of the cast while the outer implants had 5, 10, or 15 degrees convergence towards or divergence away from the center implant. The control definitive cast had all 3 implants parallel to each another and perpendicular to the plane of the cast. Five open tray and 5 closed tray addition silicone impressions were made of each definitive cast. Impressions were poured with type IV dental stone, and a fine tip measuring stylus was used to record multiple axis (X-Y-Z) coordinates on the top surface of the implant hex and on the cast base. Computer software was used to align the data sets and vector calculations determined the difference in degrees between the implant angles in the definitive cast and the duplicate casts. Statistical analysis used repeated-measures ANOVA (alpha=.05) with post-hoc tests of significant interactions. RESULTS: The angle errors for the closed and open tray impression techniques did not differ significantly (P=.22). Implant angulations and implant numbers differed in average angle errors but not in any easily interpreted pattern (P<.001). The combined interaction of impression technique, implant angulation, and implant number had no effect on the accuracy of the duplicate casts compared to the definitive casts (P=.19). CONCLUSIONS: The average angle errors for the closed and open tray impression techniques did not differ significantly. There was no interpretable pattern of average angle errors in terms of implant angulation and implant number. The magnitude of distortion was similar for all combinations of impression technique, implant angulation, and implant number.     

Accuracy and dimensional stability of extended-pour and conventional alginate impression materials

BackgroundThe authors conducted a study to determine if two irreversible hydrocolloid impression materials (Cavex ColorChange, Cavex Holland BV, Haarlem, Netherlands; Jeltrate Plus Antimicrobial Dustless Alginate Impression Material, Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.) stored for five days were dimensionally accurate.MethodsThe authors modified Ivorine teeth (Columbia Dentoform, Long Island City, N.Y.) on a Dentoform model (1560 series model, Columbia Dentoform) to allow measurements of tooth and arch width. They made impressions and generated casts immediately and at five additional times. They recorded tooth and arch widths on the casts and compared the measurements with those for the standard model.ResultsCompared with measurements for the model, the greatest measured difference in casts was 0.003 inches for Cavex ColorChange (extended-pour alginate) and 0.005 inches for Jeltrate Plus Antimicrobial Dustless Alginate Impression Material (conventional alginate). The percentage of dimensional change ranged from ?0.496 to 0.161 percent for the extended-pour alginate and from ?0.174 to 0.912 percent for the conventional alginate.ConclusionsResults of analysis of variance and paired t tests indicated that when generated immediately and at day 5, casts produced from both impression materials were not statistically different from the standard model (P < .05).Clinical ImplicationsWhen stored properly, both alginate materials can produce accurate impressions at day 5 for diagnostic casts and for fabrication of acrylic appliances.     

Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis

PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of a stone index and of 3 impression techniques (tapered impression copings, squared impression copings, and squared impression copings splinted with acrylic resin) associated with 3 pouring techniques (conventional, pouring using latex tubes fitted onto analogs, and pouring after joining the analogs with acrylic resin) for implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A mandibular brass cast with 4 stainless steel implant-abutment analogs, a framework, and 2 aluminum custom trays were fabricated. Polyether impression material was used for all impressions. Ten groups were formed (a control group and 9 test groups formed by combining each pouring technique and impression technique). Five casts were made per group for a total of 50 casts and 200 gap values (1 gap value for each implant-abutment analog). RESULTS: The mean gap value with the index technique was 27.07 microm. With the conventional pouring technique, the mean gap values were 116.97 microm for the tapered group, 57.84 microm for the squared group, and 73.17 microm for the squared splinted group. With pouring using latex tubes, the mean gap values were 65.69 microm for the tapered group, 38.03 microm for the squared group, and 82.47 microm for the squared splinted group. With pouring after joining the analogs with acrylic resin, the mean gap values were 141.12 microm for the tapered group, 74.19 microm for the squared group, and 104.67 microm for the squared splinted group. No significant difference was detected among Index, square/latex techniques, and master cast (P >.05). CONCLUSIONS: The most accurate impression technique utilized squared copings. The most accurate pouring technique for making the impression with tapered or squared copings utilized latex tubes. The pouring did not influence the accuracy of the stone casts when using splinted squared impression copings. Either the index technique or the use of squared coping combined with the latex-tube pouring technique are preferred methods for making implant-supported fixed restorations with dimensional accuracy.     

Accuracy of stereolithography additive casts used in a digital workflow

Statement of problem

Despite the increasing demand for a digital workflow in the fabrication of indirect restorations, information on the accuracy of the resulting definitive casts is limited.

Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression

The achievable accuracy is a decisive parameter for the comparison of direct intraoral digitization with the conventional impression. The objective of the study was therefore to compare the accuracy of the reproduction of a model situation by intraoral digitization vs. the conventional procedure consisting of impression taking, model production, and extraoral digitization. Proceeding from a die model with a prepared tooth 16, the reference data set of the teeth 15, 16 and 17 was produced with an established procedure by means ofextraoral digitization. For the simulated intraoral data acquisition of the master model (Cerec 3D camera, Sirona, Bensheim), the camera was fastened on a stand for the measurement and the teeth digitized seven times each in defined views (occlusal, and in each case inclined by 20 degrees, from the mesio-proximal, disto-proximal, vestibular and oral aspect). Matching was automated (comparative data sets B1-B5). A clinically perfect one-step putty-and-wash impression was taken from the starting model. The model produced under defined conditions was digitized extraorally five times (digi-SCAN, comparative data sets C1-C5). The data sets B1-B5 and C1-C5 were assigned to the reference data set by means of best-fit matching and the root of the mean quadratic deviation (RMS; root mean square) calculated. The deviations were visualized, and mean positive, negative and absolute deviations calculated. The mean RMS was 27.9 microm (B1-B5) or 18.8 microm (C1-C5). The mean deviations for the prepared tooth were 18 microm/-17 microm (B1-B5) and 9 microm /-9 microm (C1-C5). For tooth 15, the mean deviations were 22 microm/-19 microm (B1-B5) and 15 microm/-16 microm (C1-C5). The intraoral method showed good results with deviations from the CAD starting model of approx. 17 microm, related to the prepared tooth 16. On the whole, in this in-vitro study, extraoral digitization with impression taking and model production showed higher accuracy than intraoral digitization. Since the inaccuracies in the conventional impression under real clinical conditions may be higher than the values determined above, a comparison under clinical conditions should be performed subsequently.     

Accuracy of implant impression splinted techniques: effect of splinting material

Three implant impression techniques, using 3 different splinting materials, were assessed for accuracy in a laboratory model that simulated clinical practice. For group A, an autopolymerizing acrylic resin was used to splint transfer copings. In group B, a dual-cure acrylic resin was used, and for group C, plaster, which was also the impression material, was used. A metal implant master cast with an implant master framework was made to accurately fit to the cast. This cast was the standard for all impressions. For each group, 15 impressions were made. Polyether impression material was used for groups A and B. The accuracy of the stone casts with the implant analogues was measured against the master framework, using strain gauges. A multiple analysis of variance with repeated measures was performed to test for significant differences among the 3 groups. Additional analyses of variance were carried out to locate the source of difference. The statistical analyses revealed that a significant difference existed between groups A and B and between groups B and C but not between groups A and C. Impression techniques using autopolymerizing acrylic resin or impression plaster as a splinting material were significantly more accurate than dual-cure acrylic resin. Plaster is the material of choice in completely edentulous patients, since it is much easier to manipulate, less time consuming, and less expensive.     

Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the appropriate impression technique by analyzing the superimposition of 3D digital model for evaluating accuracy of conventional impression technique and digital impression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four patients who had no periodontitis or temporomandibular joint disease were selected for analysis. As a reference model, digital impressions with a digital impression system were performed. As a test models, for conventional impression dual-arch and full-arch, impression techniques utilizing addition type polyvinylsiloxane for fabrication of cast were applied. 3D laser scanner is used for scanning the cast. Each 3 pairs for 25 STL datasets were imported into the inspection software. The three-dimensional differences were illustrated in a color-coded map. For three-dimensional quantitative analysis, 4 specified contact locations(buccal and lingual cusps of second premolar and molar) were established. For twodimensional quantitative analysis, the sectioning from buccal cusp to lingual cusp of second premolar and molar were acquired depending on the tooth axis.

RESULTS

In color-coded map, the biggest difference between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression was seen (P<.05). In three-dimensional analysis, the biggest difference was seen between intraoral scanning and dual-arch impression and the smallest difference was seen between dual-arch and full-arch impression.

CONCLUSION

The two- and three-dimensional deviations between intraoral scanner and dual-arch impression was bigger than full-arch and dual-arch impression (P<.05). The second premolar showed significantly bigger three-dimensional deviations than the second molar in the three-dimensional deviations (P>.05).     

Accuracy of different definitive impression techniques with the all-on-4 protocol

Statement of problemA nonpassive fit of implant-supported restorations can jeopardize the biological and mechanical success of the treatment. Data regarding the fit of different impression techniques for the all-on-4 protocol are limited.PurposeThe purpose of this in vitro study was to digitally evaluate 4 different impression techniques used with the all-on-4 protocol, with distal multiunit analogs positioned in 4 different angulations.Material and methodsFour maxillary definitive cast models with 4 multiunit analogs (T0 32202; NucleOSS) were fabricated according to the all-on-4 treatment protocol. In the anterior region, the analogs were positioned in a parallel direction, whereas in the posterior region, they were positioned in different angulations (0, 10, 20, and 30 degrees). One hundred and sixty models were obtained by using 4 different impression techniques (closed tray without plastic cap, closed tray with plastic cap, splinted open tray, sectioned resplinted open tray) (n=10) and polyvinyl siloxane impression material. Definitive casts and definitive duplicate casts were scanned using a modified laser scanner (Activity 880; Smart Optics Sensortechnik GmbH), and data were transferred to a software program (VRMesh Studio; Virtual Grid Inc). The definitive casts and definitive duplicate cast scans were digitally aligned. Angular and linear deviations in all axes (x, y, and z) of the analogs between definitive and duplicate casts were calculated and subjected to statistical analyses (α=.05).ResultsMean angular deviations were in the range of 0.03 to 0.16 degrees, and linear deviations were in the range of 0.10 to 0.75 mm. The increased angulation between impression copings caused higher linear and angular deviations when closed-tray impression techniques were used (P<.05).ConclusionsReduced linear and angular displacements were obtained from the open-tray impression techniques compared with the closed-tray impression techniques in the angulated groups. Angular and linear deviations increased with the increase in the angulation of the posterior analog.     

Comparison between digital and conventional impression techniques in children on preference,time and comfort: A crossover randomized controlled trial

Objective

To compare the conventional alginate impression and the digital impression taken with an intraoral scanner of both dental arches in children, using a randomized crossover design.

Trial Design

This is a monocentric, controlled, superiority, randomized, crossover, open study.

Methods

Twenty-four orthodontic patients between 6 and 11 years of age underwent intraoral scanning (TRIOS 3; 3Shape) and alginate impression of both dental arches with an interval of 1 week between the two procedures. Participants were recruited from September 2021 to March 2022 and the study was completed in April 2022. Impression time for the two procedures was compared. Patients were asked which one of the two impression procedures they preferred. A questionnaire including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for comfort, pain, gag reflex and difficulty in breathing, was administered to the patients.

Results

Eighteen out of 24 patients preferred digital impression (75%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 55% to 88%; P = .014). Scanning time was significantly shorter than alginate impression time (difference −118 seconds; 95% CI: −138 to −99; P < .001). Comfort was significantly higher for digital impression (difference 1.7; 95% CI: 0.5 to 2.8; P = .007). There was no difference in pain (difference −0.2; 95% CI: −1.5 to 1.0; P = .686) while gag reflex and breathing difficulties were smaller for digital impression (gag reflex difference −2.5; 95% CI: −4.0 to −0.9; P = .004 and breathing difficulties difference −1.5; 95% CI: −2.5 to −0.5; P = −.004).

Conclusions

Digital impression is preferred by children aged 6–11 years and it is significantly faster in acquisition time than conventional alginate impression.

Registration

The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with registration number NCT04220957 on January 7th, 2020 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04220957 ).