A. Kernen-Gintaute , M. Akulauskas , F. Kernen , N.U. Zitzmann , B.C. Spies , F. Burkhardt
{"title":"无牙颌数字与传统种植印模的准确性:临床比较研究。","authors":"A. Kernen-Gintaute , M. Akulauskas , F. Kernen , N.U. Zitzmann , B.C. Spies , F. Burkhardt","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in a fully edentulous maxilla and mandible.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A 53-year-old edentulous patient with four maxillary and two mandibular implants was selected. Ten intraoral scans (IOS) and a conventional impression per jaw were taken. Clinically verified upper and lower plaster models were digitized using both optical (reference data, <em>n</em> = 10 per model) and tactile laboratory scanner (<em>n</em> = 10 per model). Accuracy was evaluated by comparing the precision and linear/angular deviations of the implants with the reference data. Statistical analyses were conducted using Student's <em>t</em>-test and Kruskal–Wallis test (<em>α</em> = 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In the maxilla, the most significant linear deviations exceeding the 100 µm threshold were found with IOS between implants 1–4. In the mandible, all linear deviations remained below 55 µm. Angular deviations between implants after IOS ranged from 0.01° to 0.40° in the mandible and <0.01° to 1.86° in the maxilla. After tactile scanning, linear deviations did not exceed 100 µm threshold (except in one distance) and angular deviations ranged from 0.04° to 0.54° (mandible) and <0.01° to 2.50° (maxilla). The optical scanner demonstrated significantly higher precision (<em>p</em> < 0.001) compared to the IOS and tactile scanner.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Given the significant deviations observed, especially in the maxilla, the optical scanner following conventional impressions remained the preferred method for fully edentulous cases due to its superior accuracy.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical significance</h3><div>IOS could be a viable alternative particularly for shorter distances in the edentulous jaw, although the clinical implications of these deviations need to be investigated in future studies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"153 ","pages":"Article 105559"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in edentulous jaws: A clinical comparative study\",\"authors\":\"A. Kernen-Gintaute , M. Akulauskas , F. Kernen , N.U. Zitzmann , B.C. Spies , F. Burkhardt\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105559\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in a fully edentulous maxilla and mandible.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>A 53-year-old edentulous patient with four maxillary and two mandibular implants was selected. Ten intraoral scans (IOS) and a conventional impression per jaw were taken. Clinically verified upper and lower plaster models were digitized using both optical (reference data, <em>n</em> = 10 per model) and tactile laboratory scanner (<em>n</em> = 10 per model). Accuracy was evaluated by comparing the precision and linear/angular deviations of the implants with the reference data. Statistical analyses were conducted using Student's <em>t</em>-test and Kruskal–Wallis test (<em>α</em> = 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In the maxilla, the most significant linear deviations exceeding the 100 µm threshold were found with IOS between implants 1–4. In the mandible, all linear deviations remained below 55 µm. Angular deviations between implants after IOS ranged from 0.01° to 0.40° in the mandible and <0.01° to 1.86° in the maxilla. After tactile scanning, linear deviations did not exceed 100 µm threshold (except in one distance) and angular deviations ranged from 0.04° to 0.54° (mandible) and <0.01° to 2.50° (maxilla). The optical scanner demonstrated significantly higher precision (<em>p</em> < 0.001) compared to the IOS and tactile scanner.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Given the significant deviations observed, especially in the maxilla, the optical scanner following conventional impressions remained the preferred method for fully edentulous cases due to its superior accuracy.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical significance</h3><div>IOS could be a viable alternative particularly for shorter distances in the edentulous jaw, although the clinical implications of these deviations need to be investigated in future studies.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15585,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"volume\":\"153 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105559\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225000053\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225000053","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}
Accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in edentulous jaws: A clinical comparative study
Objectives
This clinical study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions in a fully edentulous maxilla and mandible.
Methods
A 53-year-old edentulous patient with four maxillary and two mandibular implants was selected. Ten intraoral scans (IOS) and a conventional impression per jaw were taken. Clinically verified upper and lower plaster models were digitized using both optical (reference data, n = 10 per model) and tactile laboratory scanner (n = 10 per model). Accuracy was evaluated by comparing the precision and linear/angular deviations of the implants with the reference data. Statistical analyses were conducted using Student's t-test and Kruskal–Wallis test (α = 0.05).
Results
In the maxilla, the most significant linear deviations exceeding the 100 µm threshold were found with IOS between implants 1–4. In the mandible, all linear deviations remained below 55 µm. Angular deviations between implants after IOS ranged from 0.01° to 0.40° in the mandible and <0.01° to 1.86° in the maxilla. After tactile scanning, linear deviations did not exceed 100 µm threshold (except in one distance) and angular deviations ranged from 0.04° to 0.54° (mandible) and <0.01° to 2.50° (maxilla). The optical scanner demonstrated significantly higher precision (p < 0.001) compared to the IOS and tactile scanner.
Conclusions
Given the significant deviations observed, especially in the maxilla, the optical scanner following conventional impressions remained the preferred method for fully edentulous cases due to its superior accuracy.
Clinical significance
IOS could be a viable alternative particularly for shorter distances in the edentulous jaw, although the clinical implications of these deviations need to be investigated in future studies.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review.
The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis.
Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research.
The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.