Advertisement

Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp 1495–1504 | Cite as

In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions

  • Andreas Ender
  • Moritz Zimmermann
  • Thomas Attin
  • Albert Mehl
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

Quadrant impressions are commonly used as alternative to full-arch impressions. Digital impression systems provide the ability to take these impressions very quickly; however, few studies have investigated the accuracy of the technique in vivo. The aim of this study is to assess the precision of digital quadrant impressions in vivo in comparison to conventional impression techniques.

Materials and methods

Impressions were obtained via two conventional (metal full-arch tray, CI, and triple tray, T-Tray) and seven digital impression systems (Lava True Definition Scanner, T-Def; Lava Chairside Oral Scanner, COS; Cadent iTero, ITE; 3Shape Trios, TRI; 3Shape Trios Color, TRC; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.0, BC4.0; CEREC Bluecam, Software 4.2, BC4.2; and CEREC Omnicam, OC). Impressions were taken three times for each of five subjects (n = 15). The impressions were then superimposed within the test groups. Differences from model surfaces were measured using a normal surface distance method. Precision was calculated using the Perc90_10 value. The values for all test groups were statistically compared.

Results

The precision ranged from 18.8 (CI) to 58.5 μm (T-Tray), with the highest precision in the CI, T-Def, BC4.0, TRC, and TRI groups. The deviation pattern varied distinctly depending on the impression method. Impression systems with single-shot capture exhibited greater deviations at the tooth surface whereas high-frame rate impression systems differed more in gingival areas. Triple tray impressions displayed higher local deviation at the occlusal contact areas of upper and lower jaw.

Conclusions

Digital quadrant impression methods achieve a level of precision, comparable to conventional impression techniques. However, there are significant differences in terms of absolute values and deviation pattern.

Clinical relevance

With all tested digital impression systems, time efficient capturing of quadrant impressions is possible. The clinical precision of digital quadrant impression models is sufficient to cover a broad variety of restorative indications. Yet the precision differs significantly between the digital impression systems.

Keywords

CAD/CAM Digital impression Quadrant impression Precision Accuracy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M (2009) Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 22:158–160PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Small BW (2012) Revisiting impressions using dual-arch trays. Gen Dent 60:379–381PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    de Lima LM, Borges GA, Junior LH, Spohr AM (2014) In vivo study of the accuracy of dual-arch impressions. Journal of International oral Health: JIOH 6:50–55PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Reddy JM, Prashanti E, Kumar GV, Suresh Sajjan MC, Mathew X (2009) A comparative study of inter-abutment distance of dies made from full arch dual-arch impression trays with those made from full arch stock trays: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res Off Publ Indian Soc Dent Res 20:412–417. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.59437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldstein JH, Werrin SR (2007) InLab CEREC restorations from a dual-arch impression. Dent Today 26(62):64Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ceyhan JA, Johnson GH, Lepe X, Phillips KM (2003) A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a complete-arch custom tray. J Prosthet Dent 90:228–234. doi: 10.1016/S0022391303002373 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cayouette MJ, Burgess JO, Jones Jr RE, Yuan CH (2003) Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays. Quintessence Int 34:189–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abrams SH (2002) Benefits of the dual-arch impression technique. Accurate impressions and fewer than 1 % remakes. Dent Today 21:56–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Breeding L, Dixon D (2000) Accuracy of casts generated from dual-arch impressions. J Prosthet Dent 84:403–407. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2000.110266 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cayouette M, Burgess J, Jones RJ, Yuan C (2003) Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays. Quintessence Int 34:189–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Larson T, Nielsen M, Brackett W (2002) The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 87:625–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mormann W (2006) The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 137(Suppl):7S–13SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reich S, Peltz I, Wichmann M, Estafan D (2005) A comparative study of two CEREC software systems in evaluating manufacturing time and accuracy of restorations. Gen Dent 53:195–198PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mattiola A, Mormann W, Lutz F (1995) The computer-generated occlusion of cerec-2 inlays and onlays. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 105:1284–1290PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W (2014) Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 18:1687–1694. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ender A, Mehl A (2014) In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a32244 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 109:121–128. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W (2014) The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 145:542–551. doi: 10.14219/jada.2014.23 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jaschouz S, Mehl A (2014) Reproducibility of habitual intercuspation in vivo. J Dent 42:210–218. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Christensen G (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Chandran D, Jagger D, Jagger R, Barbour M (2010) Two- and three-dimensional accuracy of dental impression materials: effects of storage time and moisture contamination. Biomed Mater Eng 20:243–249. doi: 10.3233/BME-2010-0638 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J (2010) Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 38:553–559. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.03.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Luthardt R, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ziegler M (2009) Digital impression taking with reproducibly high precision. Int J Comput Dent 12:159–163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ender A, Mehl A (2014) Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision. J Vis Exp JoVE. doi: 10.3791/51374 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC (2013) Precision of intraoral dental impression with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 144:471–478. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B (2013) Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 17:1759–1764. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Silva JS A e, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Araujo E, Stimmelmayr M, Vieira LC, Guth JF (2014) Marginal and internal fit of four-unit zirconia fixed dental prostheses based on digital and conventional impression techniques. Clin Oral Investig 18:515–523. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-0987-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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 30:400–407. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C (2014) A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 112:555–560. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.12.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wettstein F, Sailer I, Roos M, Hammerle C (2008) Clinical study of the internal gaps of zirconia and metal frameworks for fixed partial dentures. Eur J Oral Sci 116:272–279. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2008.00527.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brosky M, Pesun I, Lowder P, Delong R, Hodges J (2002) Laser digitization of casts to determine the effect of tray selection and cast formation technique on accuracy. J Prosthet Dent 87:204–209CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Delong R, Heinzen M, Hodges J, Ko C, Douglas W (2003) Accuracy of a system for creating 3D computer models of dental arches. J Dent Res 82:438–442CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rudolph H, Luthardt R, Walter M (2007) Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM technology. Comput Biol Med 37:579–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H (2014) Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients’ perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 14:10. doi: 10.1186/1472-6831-14-10 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jedynakiewicz N, Martin N (2001) CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. Compend Contin Educ Dent 22:7–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Arnetzl G (2006) Different ceramic technologies in a clinical long-term comparison. Book title, Quintessenz LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Reiss B, Walther W (2000) Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of cerec restorations. Int J Comput Dent 3:9–23PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hoyos A, Soderholm K (2011) Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions. Int J Prosthodont 24:49–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ceyhan J, Johnson G, Lepe X, Phillips K (2003) A clinical study comparing the three-dimensional accuracy of a working die generated from two dual-arch trays and a complete-arch custom tray. J Prosthet Dent 90:228–234. doi: 10.1016/S0022391303002373 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rudolph H, Graf MR, Kuhn K, Rupf-Kohler S, Eirich A, Edelmann C, Quaas S, Luthardt RG (2015) Performance of dental impression materials: benchmarking of materials and techniques by three-dimensional analysis. Dent Mater J. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2014-197 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16:11–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kim SY et al. (2013) Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 26:161–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ting-Shu S, Jian S (2014) Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12218 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Ender
    • 1
  • Moritz Zimmermann
    • 1
  • Thomas Attin
    • 2
  • Albert Mehl
    • 1
  1. 1.Division for Computerized Restorative Dentistry, Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental MedicineUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental MedicineUniversity of ZürichZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations