-
International Journal of Environmental... Jan 2021Digital impressions in implant dentistry rely on many variables, and their accuracy, particularly in complete edentulous patients, is not well understood. The purpose... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Digital impressions in implant dentistry rely on many variables, and their accuracy, particularly in complete edentulous patients, is not well understood. The purpose of this literature review was to determine which factors may influence the accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry. Emphasized attention was given to the design of the intra-oral scan body (ISB) and scanning techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A Medline, PubMed and EBSCO Host databases search, complemented by a hand search, was performed in order to select relevant reports regarding the appliance of digital impressions in implant dentistry. The search subject included but was not limited to accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry, digital scanning techniques, the design and material of the ISBs, and the depth and angulation of the implant. The related titles and abstracts were screened, and the remaining articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected for full-text readings.
RESULTS
The literature search conducted for this review initially resulted in 108 articles, among which only 21 articles fulfilled the criteria for inclusion. Studies were evaluated according to five subjects: accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry; the design and material of the intra-oral scan bodies; scanning technique; the influence of implants depth/angulations on the digital impression and accuracy of different intra-oral scanner devices.
CONCLUSIONS
The accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry depends on several aspects. The depth/angulation of the implant, the experience of the operator, the intra-oral scanner used, and environmental conditions may influence the accuracy of digital impressions in implant dentistry. However, it seems that ISBs' design and material, as well as scanning technique, have a major impact on the trueness and precision of digital impressions in implant dentistry. Future research is suggested for the better understanding of this subject, focusing on the optimization of the ISB design and scanning protocols.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Impression Technique; Dentistry; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Prostheses and Implants
PubMed: 33498902
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18031020 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Edentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Edentulism is relatively common and is often treated with the provision of complete or partial removable dentures. Clinicians make final impressions of complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD) using different techniques and materials. Applying the correct impression technique and material, based on an individual's oral condition, improves the quality of the prosthesis, which may improve quality of life.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make complete dentures, for retention, stability, comfort, and quality of life in completely edentulous people.To assess the effects of different final-impression techniques and materials used to make removable partial dentures, for stability, comfort, overextension, and quality of life in partially edentulous people.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 22 November 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Register of Studies, to 22 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 November 2017), and Embase Ovid (21 December 2015 to 22 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status when searching the electronic databases, however the search of Embase was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project to identify all clinical trials and add them to CENTRAL.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different final-impression techniques and materials for treating people with complete dentures (CD) and removable partial dentures (RPD). For CD, we included trials that compared different materials or different techniques or both. In RPD for tooth-supported conditions, we included trials comparing the same material and different techniques, or different materials and the same technique. In tooth- and tissue-supported RPD, we included trials comparing the same material and different dual-impression techniques, and different materials with different dual-impression techniques.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently, and in duplicate, screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for each included trial. We expressed results as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes, and as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), using the random-effects model. We constructed 'Summary of findings' tables for the main comparisons and outcomes (participant-reported oral health-related quality of life, quality of the denture, and denture border adjustments).
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine studies in this review. Eight studies involved 485 participants with CD. We assessed six of the studies to be at high risk of bias, and two to be at low risk of bias. We judged one study on RPD with 72 randomised participants to be at high risk of bias.Overall, the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome was either low or very low, therefore, results should be interpreted with caution, as future research is likely to change the findings.Complete denturesTwo studies compared the same material and different techniques (one study contributed data to a secondary outcome only); two studies compared the same technique and different materials; and four studies compared different materials and techniques.One study (10 participants) evaluated two stage-two step, Biofunctional Prosthetic system (BPS) using additional silicone elastomer compared to conventional methods, and found no evidence of a clear difference for oral health-related quality of life, or quality of the dentures (denture satisfaction). The study reported that BPS required fewer adjustments. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study (27 participants) compared selective pressure final-impression technique using wax versus polysulfide elastomeric (rubber) material. The study did not measure quality of life or dentures, and found no evidence of a clear difference between interventions in the need for adjustments (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared two stage-two step final impression with alginate versus silicone elastomer. Oral health-related quality of life measured by the OHIP-EDENT seemed to be better with silicone (MD 7.20, 95% CI 2.71 to 11.69; 144 participants). The study found no clear differences in participant-reported quality of the denture (comfort) after a two-week 'confirmation' period, but reported that silicone was better for stability and chewing efficiency. We assessed the quality of the evidence as low.Three studies compared single-stage impressions with alginate versus two stage-two step with elastomer (silicone, polysulfide, or polyether) impressions. There was no evidence of a clear difference in the OHIP-EDENT at one month (MD 0.05, 95% CI -2.37 to 2.47; two studies, 98 participants). There was no evidence of a clear difference in participant-rated general satisfaction with dentures at six months (MD 0.00, 95% CI -8.23 to 8.23; one study, 105 participants). We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.One study compared single-stage alginate versus two stage-two step using zinc-oxide eugenol, and found no evidence of a clear difference in OHIP-EDENT (MD 0.50, 95% CI -2.67 to 3.67; 39 participants), or general satisfaction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 0.14 to 72.88; 39 participants) at six months. We assessed the quality of the evidence as very low.Removable partial denturesOne study randomised 72 participants and compared altered-cast technique versus one-piece cast technique. The study did not measure quality of life, but reported that most participants were satisfied with the dentures and there was no evidence of any clear difference between groups for general satisfaction at one-year follow-up (low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a clear difference in number of intaglio adjustments at one year (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.61 to 3.34) (very low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that there is no clear evidence that one technique or material has a substantial advantage over another for making complete dentures and removable partial dentures. Available evidence for the relative benefits of different denture fabrication techniques and final-impression materials is limited and is of low or very low quality. More high-quality RCTs are required.
Topics: Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Denture Design; Denture Retention; Denture, Partial, Removable; Dentures; Humans; Mouth, Edentulous; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29617037
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012256.pub2 -
Marine Drugs Dec 2018Hydrocolloids were the first elastic materials to be used in the dental field. Elastic impression materials include reversible (agar-agar), irreversible (alginate)... (Review)
Review
Hydrocolloids were the first elastic materials to be used in the dental field. Elastic impression materials include reversible (agar-agar), irreversible (alginate) hydrocolloids and synthetic elastomers (polysulfides, polyethers, silicones). They reproduce an imprint faithfully, providing details of a high definition despite the presence of undercuts. With the removal of the impression, being particularly rich in water, the imprints can deform but later adapt to the original shape due to the elastic properties they possess. The advantages of using alginate include the low cost, a better tolerability on the part of the patient, the ease of manipulation, the short time needed for execution, the instrumentation and the very simple execution technique and possibility of detecting a detailed impression (even in the presence of undercuts) in a single step. A comprehensive review of the current literature was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines by accessing the NCBI PubMed database. Authors conducted a search of articles in written in English published from 2008 to 2018. All the relevant studies were included in the search with respect to the characteristics and evolution of new marine derived materials. Much progress has been made in the search for new marine derived materials. Conventional impression materials are different, and especially with the advent of digital technology, they have been suffering from a decline in research attention over the last few years. However, this type of impression material, alginates (derived from marine algae), have the advantage of being among the most used in the dental medical field.
Topics: Agar; Alginates; Animals; Colloids; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Materials Testing; Surface Properties; Tooth
PubMed: 30597945
DOI: 10.3390/md17010018 -
The International Journal of... 2018To evaluate the accuracy and precision of a digital scanner used to scan four implants positioned according to an immediate loading implant protocol and to assess the...
PURPOSE
To evaluate the accuracy and precision of a digital scanner used to scan four implants positioned according to an immediate loading implant protocol and to assess the accuracy of an aluminum framework fabricated from a digital impression.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Five master casts reproducing different edentulous maxillae with four tilted implants were used. Four scan bodies were screwed onto the low-profile abutments, and a digital intraoral scanner was used to perform five digital impressions of each master cast. To assess trueness, a metal framework of the best digital impression was produced with computer-aided design/computer-assisted manufacture (CAD/CAM) technology and passive fit was assessed with the Sheffield test. Gaps between the frameworks and the implant analogs were measured with a stereomicroscope. To assess precision, three-dimensional (3D) point cloud processing software was used to measure the deviations between the five digital impressions of each cast by producing a color map. The deviation values were grouped in three classes, and differences were assessed between class 2 (representing lower discrepancies) and the assembled classes 1 and 3 (representing the higher negative and positive discrepancies, respectively).
RESULTS
The frameworks showed a mean gap of < 30 μm (range: 2 to 47 μm). A statistically significant difference was found between the two groups by the 3D point cloud software, with higher frequencies of points in class 2 than in grouped classes 1 and 3 (P < .001).
CONCLUSION
Within the limits of this in vitro study, it appears that a digital impression may represent a reliable method for fabricating full-arch implant frameworks with good passive fit when tilted implants are present.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Dental Prosthesis, Implant-Supported; Humans; Jaw, Edentulous; Models, Dental
PubMed: 29518813
DOI: 10.11607/ijp.5535 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2021The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether intraoral scanning (IOS) is able to reduce working time and improve patient-reported outcome measures... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The primary aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether intraoral scanning (IOS) is able to reduce working time and improve patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared to conventional impression (CI) techniques, taking into account the size of the scanned area. The secondary aim was to verify the effectiveness of IOS procedures based on available prosthodontic outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were performed to collect evidence concerning the outcomes of IOS and CI performed during the treatment of partially and complete edentulous patients for tooth- or implant-supported restorations. Qualitative analysis was conducted to evaluate the time efficiency and PROMs produced by the two different techniques. Clinical prosthodontic outcomes were analyzed among the included studies when available.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies (9 randomized controlled trials and 8 prospective clinical studies) were selected for qualitative synthesis. The 17 included studies provided data from 430 IOS and 370 CI performed in 437 patients. A total of 7 different IOS systems and their various updated versions were used for digital impressions. The results demonstrated that IOS was overall faster than CI independent of whether quadrant or complete-arch scanning was utilized, regardless of the nature of the restoration (tooth or implant supported). IOS was generally preferred over CI regardless of the size of the scanned area and nature of the restoration (tooth- or implant-supported). Similar prosthodontic outcomes were reported for workflows implementing CI and IOS.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this systematic review, IOS is faster than CI, independent of whether a quadrant or complete arch scan is conducted. IOS can improve the patient experience measured by overall preference and comfort and is able to provide reliable prosthodontic outcomes.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Reduced procedure working time associated with the use of IOS can improve clinical efficiency and the patient experience during impression procedures. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an essential component of evidence-based dental practice as they allow the evaluation of therapeutic modalities from the perspective of the patient. IOS is generally preferred by patients over conventional impressions.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Implants; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Patient Comfort; Prospective Studies; Prosthodontics
PubMed: 34568955
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04157-3 -
Journal of Healthcare Engineering 2017To overcome difficulties associated with conventional techniques, impressions with IOS (intraoral scanner) and CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and manufacturing)... (Review)
Review
To overcome difficulties associated with conventional techniques, impressions with IOS (intraoral scanner) and CAD/CAM (computer-aided design and manufacturing) technologies were developed for dental practice. The last decade has seen an increasing number of optical IOS devices, and these are based on different technologies; the choice of which may impact on clinical use. To allow informed choice before purchasing or renewing an IOS, this article summarizes first the technologies currently used (light projection, distance object determination, and reconstruction). In the second section, the clinical considerations of each strategy such as handling, learning curve, powdering, scanning paths, tracking, and mesh quality are discussed. The last section is dedicated to the accuracy of files and of the intermaxillary relationship registered with IOS as the rendering of files in the graphical user interface is often misleading. This overview leads to the conclusion that the current IOS is adapted for a common practice, although differences exist between the technologies employed. An important aspect highlighted in this review is the reduction in the volume of hardware which has led to an increase in the importance of software-based technologies.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Enamel; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Light; Maxilla; Models, Dental; Reproducibility of Results; Software; Technology
PubMed: 29065652
DOI: 10.1155/2017/8427595 -
International Journal of Computerized... 2019Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are widely used for obtaining digital dental models directly from the patient. Additionally, improvements in IOSs are made from generation to...
OBJECTIVE
Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are widely used for obtaining digital dental models directly from the patient. Additionally, improvements in IOSs are made from generation to generation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of new and actual IOS devices for complete- and partial-arch dental impressions in an in vitro setup.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A custom maxillary complete-arch cast with teeth made from feldspar ceramic material was used as the reference cast and digitized with a reference scanner (ATOS III Triple Scan MV60). One conventional impression technique using polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) material (President) served as the control (CO), and eight different IOS devices comprising different hardware and software configurations (TRn: Trios 3; TRi: Trios 3 insane; CS: Carestream Dental CS 3600; MD: Medit i500; iT: iTero Element 2; OC4: Cerec Omnicam 4.6.1; OC5: Cerec Omnicam 5.0.0; PS: Primescan) were used to take complete-arch impressions from the reference cast. The impressions were repeated 10 times (n = 10) for each group. Conventional impressions were poured with type IV gypsum and digitized with a laboratory scanner (inEos X5). All datasets were obtained in standard tessellation language (STL) file format and cut to either complete-arch, anterior segment, or posterior segment areas for respective analysis. Values for trueness and precision for the respective areas were evaluated using a three-dimensional (3D) superimposition method with special 3D difference analysis software (GOM Inspect) using (90-10)/2 percentile values. Statistical analysis was performed using either one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis test (α = 0.05). Results are given as median and interquartile range [IQR] values in µm.
RESULTS
Statistically significant differences were found between test groups for complete- and partial-arch impression methods in vitro (p < 0.05). Values ranged from 16.3 [2.8] µm (CO) up to 89.8 [26.1] µm (OC4) for in vitro trueness, and from 10.6 [3.8] µm (CO) up to 58.6 [38.4] µm (iT) for in vitro precision for the complete-arch methods. The best values for trueness of partial-arch impressions were found for the posterior segment, with 9.7 [1.2] µm for the conventional impression method (CO), and 21.9 [1.5] µm (PS) for the digital impression method.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of this study, digital impressions obtained from specific IOSs are a valid alternative to conventional impressions for partial-arch segments. Complete-arch impressions are still challenging for IOS devices; however, certain devices were shown to be well within the required range for clinical quality. Further in vivo studies are needed to support these results.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Arch; Dental Impression Technique; Humans; Imaging, Three-Dimensional; Models, Dental
PubMed: 30848250
DOI: No ID Found -
BMC Oral Health Jan 2014The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort. (Clinical Trial)
Clinical Trial Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to compare two impression techniques from the perspective of patient preferences and treatment comfort.
METHODS
Twenty-four (12 male, 12 female) subjects who had no previous experience with either conventional or digital impression participated in this study. Conventional impressions of maxillary and mandibular dental arches were taken with a polyether impression material (Impregum, 3 M ESPE), and bite registrations were made with polysiloxane bite registration material (Futar D, Kettenbach). Two weeks later, digital impressions and bite scans were performed using an intra-oral scanner (CEREC Omnicam, Sirona). Immediately after the impressions were made, the subjects' attitudes, preferences and perceptions towards impression techniques were evaluated using a standardized questionnaire. The perceived source of stress was evaluated using the State-Trait Anxiety Scale. Processing steps of the impression techniques (tray selection, working time etc.) were recorded in seconds. Statistical analyses were performed with the Wilcoxon Rank test, and p < 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS
There were significant differences among the groups (p < 0.05) in terms of total working time and processing steps. Patients stated that digital impressions were more comfortable than conventional techniques.
CONCLUSIONS
Digital impressions resulted in a more time-efficient technique than conventional impressions. Patients preferred the digital impression technique rather than conventional techniques.
Topics: Attitude to Health; Computer-Aided Design; Dental Anxiety; Dental Impression Materials; Dental Impression Technique; Efficiency; Female; Humans; Jaw Relation Record; Male; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Patient Preference; Patient Satisfaction; Resins, Synthetic; Siloxanes; Time Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 24479892
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Oct 2022This investigation aimed to develop a novel hydrophilic and antibacterial silicone rubber impression material for dental application.
OBJECTIVES
This investigation aimed to develop a novel hydrophilic and antibacterial silicone rubber impression material for dental application.
METHODS
The basic formula of the new silicone rubber was determined on a preliminary study, and 6% polyether modified silicone oil was added as wetting agent to provide the hydrophilicity. No-vel nano-antibacterial inorganic fillers containing quaternary ammonium salt with long chain alkyl were incorporated into the hydrophilic silicone rubber impression materials at a mass fraction of 0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, or 5%. A commercial silicone rubber impression material was used as control. The mechanical properties, wettability, detail reproducibility, dimensional stability, and mixing time of silicone rubber materials were measured. Thin-film adhesion method and cell counting kit-8 method were used to detect the antibacterial property and cytotoxicity. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was chosen to observe the micromorphology of the novel silicone rubber.
RESULTS
When the content of antibacterial filler exceeded 4%, the mechanical properties of the new silicone rubber decreased significantly (<0.05). Compared with those of the control group, the contact angle and linear size change rate of different groups had no significant change at different time nodes, and the detail reproducibility was intact (>0.05). The addition of antibacterial fillers had no significant effect on the mixing time (>0.05). Adding 4% antibacterial fillers could result in the antibacterial rate of 95.26%, showing good antibacterial properties. No significant difference was found in the cytotoxicity of all groups (>0.05). The SEM pictures of the cross section of the silicone rubber sample showed that the fillers had good compatibility with the silicone rubber matrix and distributed in the matrix evenly.
CONCLUSIONS
A novel silicone rubber impression material containing 6% polyether modified silicone oil could obtain promising hydrophilic and antibacterial properties after being added with 4% antibacterial inorganic fillers.
PubMed: 38596974
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2022.05.006