Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Jan 1;24(1):e89-e95.
doi: 10.4317/medoral.22822.

Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: Direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner

C Rech-Ortega  1 , L Fernández-Estevan, M-F Solá-Ruíz, R Agustín-Panadero, C Labaig-Rueda
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: Direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner

C Rech-Ortega et al. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. .

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare a conventional technique (elastomeric impression material - EIM) and a digital technique (scanner digital model - SDM) on a six-analog master model (MM) to determine which was the most exact.

Material and methods: Twenty impressions were taken of a master model (EIM) and twenty scanned impressions (SDM) (True Definition). A coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to measure the distances between adjacent analogues (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6), intermittently positioned analogues (1-4, 3-6) and the most distal (1-6). Reference values were established from the master model, which were compared with the two impression techniques. The significance level was established as 5% (p<0.05).

Results: The precision of each technique was compared with MM. For adjacent analogues (1-2), no significant differences were found between EIM-MM (p=0,146). For intermittently positioned analogues (1-4), SDM did not show significant differences with MM (p=0.255). For the distance between distal analogues (1-6), significant differences were found between both techniques and MM (p=0.001).

Conclusions: In a clinical situation with < three implants, EIM is more exact than SDM, but in cases of four implants SDM is more exact. For rehabilitations (> four implants), neither technique can be considered accurate although error falls within the tolerance limits established in the literature (30-150µm).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement:The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and have not received any financial support, whether from public funding bodies, private business, or not-for-profit entities.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scanning the master model with the intraoral camera (True Definition, 3M ESPE).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Measurement of distances between master model analogues. Positions of analogues on master model, numbered from 1 to 6. In blue: measuring sequence from right to left. In red: the distances measured between adjacent analogues (1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5, 5-6), intermittently positioned analogues (1-4, 3-6) and the most distally positioned analogues (1-6).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Measurement of distances (EIM). Plaster model produced using EIM impression technique with scan bodies screwed in place, set in coordinate measurement machine (CMM).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Measurement of distances (SDM). Images of scan bodies captured using the True Definition® scanner (3M® ESPE: USA) showing distances measured between analogues.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lee H, Ercoli C, Funkenbusch PD, Feng C. Effect of subgingival depth of implant placement on the dimensional accuracy of the implant impression: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99:107–13. - PubMed
    1. Lee H, So J, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100:285–91. - PubMed
    1. De Vasconcellos D, Noriyuki A, Melo A, Bottino MA, Özcan M. A microstrain comparison of passively fitting screw-retained and cemented titanium frameworks. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112:834–8. - PubMed
    1. Grosmann Y, Pasciuta M, Finger IM. A novel technique using a coded healing abutment for the fabrication of a CAD/CAM titanium abutment for an implant-supported restoration. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;95:258–61. - PubMed
    1. Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Invest. 2013;7:1201–8. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources