Trueness and Passivity of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions in Edentulous Jaws: A Prospective Clinical Study

IF 3.7 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research Pub Date : 2025-04-08 DOI:10.1111/cid.70022

Gustavo Harfagar, Sebastian Solis, Marcela Hernandez, Vincent Fehmer, Irena Sailer, Luís Azevedo

{"title":"Trueness and Passivity of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions in Edentulous Jaws: A Prospective Clinical Study","authors":"Gustavo Harfagar, Sebastian Solis, Marcela Hernandez, Vincent Fehmer, Irena Sailer, Luís Azevedo","doi":"10.1111/cid.70022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>To compare the linear and angular deviations of conventional implant (CI) and digital implant (DI) impression techniques in edentulous jaws with four or six implants.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty participants (12 men, 8 women; mean age 58.6 years) with complete edentulous maxillary (<i>n</i> = 8) or mandibular (<i>n</i> = 12) arches were included. Each patient received four or six dental implants (Straumann BLX). Both CI and DI were performed using randomized sequences. Linear and angular deviations were measured between the reference scan (coordinated measuring machine) and the CI (desktop scanner) and DI (intraoral scanner, IOS) using CATIA software (Dassault Systèmes). Framework passivity was evaluated using the Sheffield one-screw test. The Shapiro–Wilk test determined data normality (<i>p</i> < 0.05), and nonparametric statistical tests were applied using statistical software.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Descriptive statistics showed a mean linear discrepancy of 29.05 (84.80 μm) for CI and 6.95 (154.10 μm) for DI, with angular deviations of 0.06° (0.36°) for CI and 0.05° (1.40°) for DI. No statistically significant differences were found in linear (<i>p</i> = 0.38) or angular (<i>p</i> = 0.12) measurements between CI and DI. Framework passivity testing showed that both techniques achieved passive fit in 17 out of 20 cases (85%), with the reference scan achieving passivity in 18 (90%) cases. Distal implants, particularly in the upper jaw, exhibited greater discrepancies, but none were statistically significant.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>No significant differences in trueness were found between CI and DI techniques. Both methods demonstrated comparable trueness and framework passivity, supporting the use of IOS as a reliable alternative to CI in edentulous jaws with multiple implants.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50679,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","volume":"27 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cid.70022","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

To compare the linear and angular deviations of conventional implant (CI) and digital implant (DI) impression techniques in edentulous jaws with four or six implants.

Materials and Methods

Twenty participants (12 men, 8 women; mean age 58.6 years) with complete edentulous maxillary (n = 8) or mandibular (n = 12) arches were included. Each patient received four or six dental implants (Straumann BLX). Both CI and DI were performed using randomized sequences. Linear and angular deviations were measured between the reference scan (coordinated measuring machine) and the CI (desktop scanner) and DI (intraoral scanner, IOS) using CATIA software (Dassault Systèmes). Framework passivity was evaluated using the Sheffield one-screw test. The Shapiro–Wilk test determined data normality (p < 0.05), and nonparametric statistical tests were applied using statistical software.

Results

Descriptive statistics showed a mean linear discrepancy of 29.05 (84.80 μm) for CI and 6.95 (154.10 μm) for DI, with angular deviations of 0.06° (0.36°) for CI and 0.05° (1.40°) for DI. No statistically significant differences were found in linear (p = 0.38) or angular (p = 0.12) measurements between CI and DI. Framework passivity testing showed that both techniques achieved passive fit in 17 out of 20 cases (85%), with the reference scan achieving passivity in 18 (90%) cases. Distal implants, particularly in the upper jaw, exhibited greater discrepancies, but none were statistically significant.

Conclusions

No significant differences in trueness were found between CI and DI techniques. Both methods demonstrated comparable trueness and framework passivity, supporting the use of IOS as a reliable alternative to CI in edentulous jaws with multiple implants.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

13.90%

发文量

103

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The goal of Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research is to advance the scientific and technical aspects relating to dental implants and related scientific subjects. Dissemination of new and evolving information related to dental implants and the related science is the primary goal of our journal. The range of topics covered by the journals will include but be not limited to: New scientific developments relating to bone Implant surfaces and their relationship to the surrounding tissues Computer aided implant designs Computer aided prosthetic designs Immediate implant loading Immediate implant placement Materials relating to bone induction and conduction New surgical methods relating to implant placement New materials and methods relating to implant restorations Methods for determining implant stability A primary focus of the journal is publication of evidenced based articles evaluating to new dental implants, techniques and multicenter studies evaluating these treatments. In addition basic science research relating to wound healing and osseointegration will be an important focus for the journal.