Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Comparison of full-arch digital impressions to conventional impressions in vitro and in vivo.

Materials and methods

A straight metal bar was fixed between the second upper molars as a reference structure in the mouth of a voluntary patient and a corresponding polymer model. The following digitalization methods were applied: (1) the maxilla was digitized in vivo 12 times with the iTero Element (P-SCAN); (2) the maxilla was captured in vivo 12 times by conventional impression and the impression was digitized by a desktop scanner (P-IMP); (3) the impressions were poured and the 12 referring gypsum master-casts were scanned with the same desktop scanner (P-CAST); (4) the polymer model was digitized in vitro 12 times with the iTero Element (M-SCAN); (5) the polymer model was captured in vitro 12 times by conventional impression and the impression was digitized by a desktop scanner (M-IMP); (6) the impressions were poured and the 12 referring gypsum master-casts were scanned with the same desktop scanner (M-CAST). Datasets were exported and metrically analyzed (Geomagic Control X) to determine three-dimensional length aberration and angular distortion versus the reference structure. Mann–Whitney U test was implemented to detect differences (p < 0.05).

Results

For multiple accuracy parameters, P-SCAN and M-SCAN showed similar or superior results compared to the other digitalization methods. The following length deviations were found: M-SCAN (− 55 to 80 μm), M-IMP (110 to 329 μm), M-CAST (88 to 178 μm), P-SCAN (− 67 to 76 μm), P-IMP (125–320 μm), and P-CAST (92–285 μm).

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, the iTero-scan seems to be a valid alternative to conventional impressions for full arches.

Clinical relevance

Intraoral scanners are more and more used in daily routine; however, little is known about their accuracy when it comes to full-arch scans. Under optimum conditions, the direct digitalization using the iTero Element intraoral scanning device results in the same and for single parameters (arch width and arch distortion) even in higher accuracy than the indirect digitalization of the impression or the gypsum cast using a desktop scanner.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2016) A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent 55:68–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.10.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Prandtner O, Trimpl J, Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF (2017) CAD/CAM splints for the functional and esthetic evaluation of newly defined occlusal dimensions. Quintessence Int 48(3):181–191. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a37641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Edelhoff D, Beuer F, Schweiger J, Brix O, Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF (2012) CAD/CAM-generated high-density polymer restorations for the pretreatment of complex cases: a case report. Quintessence Int 43(6):457–467

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Güth JF, Almeida e Silva JSA, Beuer FF, Edelhoff D (2012) Enhancing the predictability of complex rehabilitation with a removable CAD/CAM-fabricated long-term provisional prosthesis: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 107(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)00171-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, Beuer F, Edelhoff D, Guth JF (2014) Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization—a laboratory study. Dent Mater 30(4):400–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ender A, Mehl A (2011) Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 14(1):11–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D (2013) Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 17(4):1201–1208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guth JF, Edelhoff D, Schweiger J, Keul C (2016) A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 20(7):1487–1494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1626-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12(1):11–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS (2014) Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 112(6):1461–1471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B (2015) Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 19(8):2027–2034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G (2015) Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 17(Suppl 1):e54–e64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gimenez B, Pradies G, Martinez-Rus F, Ozcan M (2015) Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30(1):56–64. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P (2017) Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(11):1360–1367. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12994

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ciocca L, Meneghello R, Monaco C, Savio G, Scheda L, Gatto MR, Baldissara P (2018) In vitro assessment of the accuracy of digital impressions prepared using a single system for full-arch restorations on implants. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 13:1097–1108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11548-018-1719-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Jeong ID, Lee JJ, Jeon JH, Kim JH, Kim HY, Kim WC (2016) Accuracy of complete-arch model using an intraoral video scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 115(6):755–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.11.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W (2014) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18(6):1687–1694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ender A, Mehl A (2015) In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 46(1):9–17. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a32244

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109(2):121–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A (2017) Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop 78(6):466–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-017-0103-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC (2013) Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144(3):471–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A (2016) In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 115(3):313–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE (2014) Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146(5):673–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results—part 1: general principles and definitions (ISO 5725-1:1994)

  25. Choi AH, Conway RC, Taraschi V, Ben-Nissan B (2015) Biomechanics and functional distortion of the human mandible. J Investig Clin Dent 6(4):241–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sahin S, Cehreli MC (2001) The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 10(2):85–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y (2012) Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 7(8):e43312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043312

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Wesemann C, Muallah J, Mah J, Bumann A (2017) Accuracy and efficiency of full-arch digitalization and 3D printing: a comparison between desktop model scanners, an intraoral scanner, a CBCT model scan, and stereolithographic 3D printing. Quintessence Int 48(1):41–50. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a37130

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Muallah J, Wesemann C, Nowak R, Robben J, Mah J, Pospiech P, Bumann A (2017) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral and extraoral scanners: an in vitro study using a new method of evaluation. Int J Comput Dent 20(2):151–164

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nowak R, Wesemann C, Robben J, Muallah J, Bumann A (2017) An in-vitro study comparing the accuracy of full-arch casts digitized with desktop scanners. Quintessence Int 20:667–676. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a38676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Persson AS, Oden A, Andersson M, Sandborgh-Englund G (2009) Digitization of simulated clinical dental impressions: virtual three-dimensional analysis of exactness. Dent Mater 25(7):929–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Matta RE, Adler W, Wichmann M, Heckmann SM (2017) Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 117(4):507–512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.07.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rehmann P, Sichwardt V, Wostmann B (2017) Intraoral scanning systems: need for maintenance. Int J Prosthodont 30(1):27–29. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The conduct of the present study was financially supported by Align Technology. Align Technology had no influence in the study design, nor in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor in writing or submitting the publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Prosthodontics, LMU Munich, Goethestraße 70, 80336, Munich, Germany

    Christine Keul & Jan-Frederik Güth

Authors
  1. Christine Keul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan-Frederik Güth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Keul.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The conduct of the present study was financially supported by Align Technology. Align Technology had no influence in the study design, nor in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor in writing or submitting the publication.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee (511-14) and registered at the German Clinical Trial Register (DRKS 00015459). All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Before starting the data acquisition, the voluntary patient signed an informed consent.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Keul, C., Güth, JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Invest 24, 735–745 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation