PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Kyoung-Rok Kim
, Kweonsoo Seo, Sunjai Kim
, Kweonsoo Seo, Sunjai Kim
Abstract
Purpose
This study systematically examines literatures on the suitability of prostheses and accuracy of obtained impressions to see if digital impressions using intraoral scanners can replace traditional impressions.
Materials and methods
A MEDLINE/PubMed search and manual search was performed for studies written in English about accuracy of digital impression published in dental journals from August 1, 1997, to July 31, 2017. Depending on criteria, the data for the selected articles were independently organized into standardized spreadsheets by 2 reviewers.
Results
Among the total 35 studies met the inclusion criteria, there were 26 studies comparing the suitability of prostheses, and 9 studies comparing the accuracy of impressions through scan data without prostheses. Most studies used prostheses to compare the accuracy of impression techniques.
Conclusion
This review suggests that making single crown or mesio-distally short prostheses with digital impressions is clinically reliable in natural teeth. However, there is still a limit to making mesio-distally long prostheses with digital impressions from the lack of related studies. Digital impression cannot fully replace traditional impressions in implant prostheses yet.
Figures and Tables
Table 6
Studies on the comparison of superimposition without prostheses
ALG: Alginate, BC: Bluecam, C: Conventional group, D: Digital group, DD: Dimensional discrepancy, F: Full arch scan, ID: Internal discrepancy, iT: iTero, LAVA: LAVA COS, M: Master model, MD: Marginal Discrepancy, MS: Microscope, OC: Omnicam, PE: Polyether, PVS: Polyvinylsiloxane, SPVS: Scannable PVS, Q: Quadrant arch scan, SI: Superimposition.
Table 7
Studies on the accuracy of implant impression
B: Bone level implant, C: Conventional group, D: Digital group, F: Full arch scan, iT: iTero, LAVA: LAVA COS, M: Master model, MD: Marginal Discrepancy, MS: Microscope, OC: Omnicam, PE: Polyether, PVS: Polyvinylsiloxane, SI: Superimposition, T: Tissue level implant, Q: Quadrant arch scan, QCS: Quality control software, VME: Vector magnitude error.
References
1. Kokubo Y, Ohkubo C, Tsumita M, Miyashita A, Vult von Steyern P, Fukushima S. Clinical marginal and internal gaps of Procera AllCeram crowns. J Oral Rehabil. 2005; 32:526–530.
2. Belser UC, MacEntee MI, Richter WA. Fit of three porcelain-fused-to-metal marginal designs in vivo: a scanning electron microscope study. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53:24–29.
3. Knoernschild KL, Campbell SD. Periodontal tissue responses after insertion of artificial crowns and fixed partial dentures. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 84:492–498.
4. Karlsson S. A clinical evaluation of fixed bridges, 10 years following insertion. J Oral Rehabil. 1986; 13:423–432.
5. Goldman M, Laosonthorn P, White RR. Microleakage-full crowns and the dental pulp. J Endod. 1992; 18:473–475.
6. Jacobs MS, Windeler AS. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65:436–442.
7. Rekow ED, Harsono M, Janal M, Thompson VP, Zhang G. Factorial analysis of variables influencing stress in all-ceramic crowns. Dent Mater. 2006; 22:125–132.
8. Alghazzawi TF. Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation. J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60:72–84.
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. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: A review. J Prosthodont. 2015; 24:313–321.
11. Christensen GJ. The challenge to conventional impressions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139:347–349.
12. Yun MJ, Jeon YC, Jeong CM, Huh JB. Comparison of the fit of cast gold crowns fabricated from the digital and the conventional impression techniques. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9:1–13.
13. Rödiger M, Heinitz A, Bürgers R, Rinke S. Fitting accuracy of zirconia single crowns produced via digital and conventional impressions-a clinical comparative study. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21:579–587.
14. Cetik S, Bahrami B, Fossoyeux I, Atash R. Adaptation of zirconia crowns created by conventional versus optical impression: in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9:208–216.
15. Zarauz C, Valverde A, Martinez-Rus F, Hassan B, Pradies G. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20:799–806.
16. Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit ceramic fixed dental prostheses made with either a conventional or digital impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116:362–367.
17. Pedroche LO, Bernardes SR, Leão MP, Kintopp CC, Correr GM, Ornaghi BP, Gonzaga CC. Marginal and internal fit of zirconia copings obtained using different digital scanning methods. Braz Oral Res. 2016; 30:e113.
18. Kim JH, Jeong JH, Lee JH, Cho HW. Fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated from conventional and digital impressions assessed with micro-CT. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116:551–557.
19. Dauti R, Cvikl B, Franz A, Schwarze UY, Lilaj B, Rybaczek T, Moritz A. Comparison of marginal fit of cemented zirconia copings manufactured after digital impression with lava C.O.S and conventional impression technique. BMC Oral Health. 2016; 16:129.
20. Berrendero S, Salido MP, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Pradíes G. Influence of conventional and digital intraoral impressions on the fit of CAD/CAM-fabricated all-ceramic crowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20:2403–2410.
21. Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20:291–300.
22. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, Erdelt K, Keul C, Güth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20:283–289.
23. Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínezí-Rus F. Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wavefront sampling technology. J Dent. 2015; 43:201–208.
24. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2015; 19:2027–2034.
25. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry IL, Thomas GW, Qian F. Internal fit of pressed and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113:304–309.
26. Alfaro DP, Ruse ND, Carvalho RM, Wyatt CC. Assessment of the Internal Fit of Lithium Disilicate Crowns Using Micro-CT. J Prosthodont. 2015; 24:381–386.
27. Abdel-Azim T, Rogers K, Elathamna E, Zandinejad A, Metz M, Morton D. Comparison of the marginal fit of lithium disilicate crowns fabricated with CAD/CAM technology by using conventional impressions and two intraoral digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114:554–559.
28. Tidehag P, Ottosson K, Sjögren G. Accuracy of ceramic restorations made using an in-office optical scanning technique: an in vitro study. Oper Dent. 2014; 39:308–316.
29. Svanborg P, Skjerven H, Carlsson P, Eliasson A, Karlsson S, Ortorp A. Marginal and internal fit of cobalt-chromium fixed dental prostheses generated from digital and conventional impressions. Int J Dent. 2014; 2014:534382.
30. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:555–560.
31. Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Güth JF. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization-a laboratory study. Dent Mater. 2014; 30:400–407.
32. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Holloway JA, Denry I, Thomas GW, Qian F. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont. 2014; 23:610–617.
33. An S, Kim S, Choi H, Lee JH, Moon HS. Evaluating the marginal fit of zirconia copings with digital impressions with an intraoral digital scanner. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112:1171–1175.
34. Almeida e Silva JS, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araújo É, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, Güth JF. Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18:515–523.
35. Abdel-Azim T, Zandinejad A, Elathamna E, Lin W, Morton D. The influence of digital fabrication options on the accuracy of dental implant-based single units and complete-arch frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:1281–1288.
36. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013; 17:1759–1764.
37. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010; 38:553–559.
38. Chew AA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, Wong KM, Ng SD, Tan KB. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: Effects of different scanners and implant level. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32:70–80.
39. Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: A threedimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32:792–799.
40. Ajioka H, Kihara H, Odaira C, Kobayashi T, Kondo H. Examination of the position accuracy of implant abutments reproduced by intra-oral optical impression. PLoS One. 2016; 11:e0164048.
41. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26:715–719.
42. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. 2015; 46:9–17.
43. Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113:310–315.
44. Kim SY, Lee SH, Cho SK, Jeong CM, Jeon YC, Yun MJ, Huh JB. Comparison of the accuracy of digitally fabricated polyurethane model and conventional gypsum model. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014; 6:1–7.
45. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109:121–128.
46. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2011; 14:11–21.
47. Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116:184–190.
48. Jørgensen KD, Esbensen AL. The relationship between the film thickness of zinc phosphate cement and the retention of veneer crowns. Acta Odontol Scand. 1968; 26:169–175.
49. Shimizu S, Shinya A, Kuroda S, Gomi H. The accuracy of the CAD system using intraoral and extraoral scanners for designing of fixed dental prostheses. Dent Mater J. 2017; 36:402–407.
50. Hwang YC, Park YS, Kim HK, Hong YS, Ahn JS, Ryu JJ. The evaluation of working casts prepared from digital impressions. Oper Dent. 2013; 38:655–662.
XML Download