COMPUTERIZED DENTAL PROSTHETICS
EFFECT OF DIGITAL WORKFLOW ON THE MARGINAL FIT OF LONG-SPAN IMPLANT-SUPPORTED BARS FOR KENNEDY II CLASS REMOVABLE PROSTHESES IN VITRO
Aristeidis Villias1a* , Triantafillos Papadopoulos2b , Nick Polychronakis1c , Hercules Karkazis1d , Gregory Polyzois1e
1Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
2Department of Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece
aClinical Instructor, DDS, MSc, Dr. Med. Dent; e-mail: Aristeidis.Villias@gmail.com; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3561-1955
bProfessor Emeritus, DDS, MSc, PhD; e-mail: email@example.com; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9533-6249
cAssociate Professor, DDS, MSc, Dr. Dent; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7373-3414
dProfessor, DDS, MSc, Dr. Dent; e-mail: email@example.com; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9003-2852
eProfessor, DDS, MScD, Dr. Dent; e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org; ORCIDiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0032-039X
Introduction The production procedures, including impressions, introduce errors affecting the passivity of fit. A completely digital workflow is possible nowadays because of the intraoral scanners (IOS). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the impression technique (conventional versus digital) and the screw tightening sequence on the marginal discrepancy (MD) of implant-supported bars.
Methodology This laboratory study was conducted on a simulated Kennedy class II edentulous maxilla with three parallel implants in the edentulous quartile. The closed tray technique with a-silicon (CTM) and the intraoral scanning with the I-Tero™ system (IOS) were compared and three bars were manufactured from each technique. Depending on the screw tightening sequence (A11 and A17) 4 groups were created with 6 samples each. The MD was examined implementing 24 negative replicas, which were sectioned and studied under a stereomicroscope. The Horizontal Discrepancy (BHD), Vertical Discrepancy (BVD) and Conical Discrepancy (BCD) of the bar were calculated on the means of the measurements of the horizontal, the vertical and the conical MD respectively. The descriptive statistics, normality tests, one-way ANOVA (a=.05) and post-hoc Tukey’s tests were run and the graphs were draw with SPSS.
Results There was a significant effect (P<.05) of the impression technique combined with the screw tightening sequence on all variables. The post-hoc Tukey’s tests revealed significant differences between all groups except from those of the same impression technique only for the BHD (P<.05).
Conclusion In this study all groups resulted in marginal discrepancies. The closed tray impression technique gave better results.
CAD/CAM; Digital Image Analysis; Implant-Supported Bar; Intraoral Scanner; Marginal Fit.he accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(1):102-109. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3592. PMID: 25615919.
Gracis S, Michalakis K, Vigolo P, et al. Internal vs. external connections for abutments/reconstructions: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23 Suppl 6:202-216. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02556.x. PMID: 23062143.
Lee HJ, Lim YJ, Kim CW, et al. Accuracy of a proposed implant impression technique using abutments and metal framework. J Adv Prosthodont. 2010;2(1):25-31. doi: 10.4047/jap.2010.2.1.25. PMID: 21165184; PMCID: PMC2984514.
Leeson D. The digital factory in both the modern dental lab and clinic. Dent Mater. 2020;36(1):43-52. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.010. PMID: 31727448.
van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43312. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0043312. PMID: 22937030; PMCID: PMC3425565.
Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, et al. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(7):625-633. doi: 10.1111/clr.13598. PMID: 32181919.
Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):186-194. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010. PMID: 24210732.
Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, et al. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(6):1687-1694. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y. PMID: 24240949.
Kim SY, Kim MJ, Han JS, et al. Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont. 2013;26(2):161-163. doi: 10.11607/ijp.3014. PMID: 23476911.
Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):735-745. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2. PMID: 31134345.
Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, et al. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1253-1262. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9. PMID: 28965251.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39(2):175-191. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146. PMID: 17695343.
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009;41(4):1149-1160. doi: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149. PMID: 19897823.
CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar
Figures are shown in pdf document
| (read pdf) |