All Issue

2017 Vol.21, Issue 1
Implant Digital Impression with Intraoral Scanners: A Literature Review

구강 내 스캐너를 이용한 임플란트 디지털 인상: 문헌적 고찰

Kweon-soo Seo1
,
Sunjai Kim1
,
Joo-Hyun Kwon1
,
Jae-Seung Chang1*
서 권수1
,
김 선재1
,
권 주현1
,
장 재승1*
1Department of Prosthodontics, Gangnam Severance Dental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University
1강남세브란스 치과병원 치과보철과
*Corresponding Author. 
March 2017. pp. 2-13
PDF XML Citation
Abstract

Accurate impression is essential factor for prosthesis fabrication. Various impression techniques have been used to generate a definitive cast that will ensure the accurate clinical fit of implant fixed complete dental prosthesis. Intraoral scanners can take implant impressions using light beam without impression material or individual tray which were used by conventional technique. Also, digital implant impression can eliminate the distortion of impression material, infection, selection of tray and reduce the patients’ discomfort. Purpose of this study was taking the efficient digital impressions through knowing the characteristic and principle of various intraoral scanners.

At 1986, Mormannn et al. developed the CEREC (Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics, Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) system which was used to make inlay milling the feldspathic porcelain at chairside and this was beginning of CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) instruments at dentistry.

There are many characteristic and limits of digital impression using intraoral scanner. Each intraoral scanner has specific instructions and principles.

Obtaining digital impression using intraoral scanner with attention, it may express better result, reduce the time and cost than conventional impression technique. And it is considered to deliver satisfactory prosthesis to patients.

Keywords
Accuracy
Digital impression
Intraoral scanner
Scan body

References
1
Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Weber A, et al. Clinical parameters influencing the accuracy of 1- and 2-stage impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21: 322-7.
18717091
2
Papaspyridakos P, Lal K, White GS, et al. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed digital prostheses in edentulous patients: A comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 1267-1272.
22167432
3
Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, et al. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant supported fixed partial dentures. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2004; 15: 466-473.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01027.x15248882
4
Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1995; 6: 172-180.
10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060306.x7578793
5
Mormann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137(suppl): 7-13.
10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0398
6
Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015; 24(4): 313± 321.
7
Logozzo S, Zanetti EL, Franceschini G, et al. Recent advances in dental optics-Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng. 2014; 54: 203-221.
10.1016/j.optlaseng.2013.07.017
8
Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, et al. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2012; 16: 851-856.
10.1007/s00784-011-0564-521647591
9
Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140: 1301-1304.
10.14219/jada.archive.2009.005419797561
10
Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, et al. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2014; 111: 186-194.
10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.01024210732
11
Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, et al. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2014; 29: 853-862.
10.11607/jomi.334325032765
12
Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent Journal of Prosthetic Dent. 2014; 112(3): 555-560.
10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.00224630399
13
Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, et al. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(2): 283-289.
10.1007/s00784-015-1513-526121970
14
Duret F, Preston JD. CAD/CAM imaging in dentistry. Curr Opin Dent. 1991; 1: 150-154.
1777659
15
Kim JH. Evaluation of the intraoral scanning technique and the fitness of all-ceramic restoration in the digital workflow. Graduate school of Korea University; 2014.
16
Hong YS, Park EJ, Kim SJ, et al. Customized abutment and screw-type implant prostheses after cementation based on the digital intra-oral impression technique. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2012; 50: 67-73.
10.4047/jkap.2012.50.1.67
17
Paddock SW, Eliceiri KW. Laser scanning confocal microscopy: history, applications, and related optical sectioning techniques. Methods Mol Biol. 2014; 1075: 9-47.
10.1007/978-1-60761-847-8_224052346
18
Ji Z, Leu MC. Design of optical triangulation devices. Opt Laser Technol. 1989; 21(5): 339-341.
10.1016/0030-3992(89)90068-6
19
van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, et al. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One. 2012; 7(8): e43312.
10.1371/journal.pone.004331222937030PMC3425565
20
Kachalia PR, Geissberger MJ. Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010; 38(5): 323-330.
20572526
21
Costa MFM. Surface inspection by an optical triangulation method. Opt Eng. 1996; 35(9): 2743-2747.
10.1117/1.600840
22
Podoleanu AG. Optical coherence tomography. J Microsc. 2012; 247(3): 209-219.
10.1111/j.1365-2818.2012.03619.x22708800PMC3563006
23
Prati F, Regar E, Mintz GS, et al. Expert's OCT Review Document. Expert review document on methodology, terminology, and clinical applications of optical coherence tomography: physical principles, methodology of image acquisition, and clinical application for assessment of coronary arteries and atherosclerosis. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(4): 401-15.
10.1093/eurheartj/ehp43319892716
24
Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, et al. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010; 38(7): 553-559.
10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.01520381576
25
Lee GT. Accuracy of digitized dental model made from white light scanner according to different scanning method. Graduate school of Korea University; 2013.
26
Kim SR. Comparison of parallel confocal laser scanning impression with conventional silicone impression regarding the marginal fitness and internal fitness of zirconia core. Graduate school of Korea University; 2011.
27
Christensen GJ. The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136: 343-6.
10.14219/jada.archive.2005.017515819348
28
Rudolph H, Luthardt RG, Walter MH. Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM tech- nology. Comput Biol Med. 2007; 37(5): 579-587.
10.1016/j.compbiomed.2006.05.00616844107
29
Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. Conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2013; 24: 111-115.
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x22353208
30
Fluegge T, Att W, Metzger M, et al. A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies an experimental approach. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2017; 26: 34-41.
10.1111/jopr.1236226466158
31
Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-8.
10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
32
Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, et al. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 277-83.
10.11607/ijp.441727148990
33
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 00, 2016, 1-8.
34
Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, et al. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 000, 2016, 1-6.
Information
  • Publisher :The Korean Academy of Oral & Maxillofacial Implantology
  • Publisher(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회
  • Journal Title :Implantology
  • Journal Title(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회지
  • Volume : 21
  • No :1
  • Pages :2-13
  • Received Date : 2017-03-02
  • Revised Date : 2017-03-11
  • Accepted Date : 2017-03-13
  • DOI :https://doi.org/10.32542/implantology.20170001
Journal Informaiton Journal of implantology and applied sciences Journal of implantology and applied sciences
Online Submission & Review System
  • NRF
  • 임플란트학회 전용 배너
  • KOFST
  • crossref crossmark
  • crossref cited-by
  • crossref funder-registry
  • crosscheck
  • orcid
  • open access
  • ccl
Journal Informaiton Journal Informaiton - close