Advertisement

Current Oral Health Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 136–141 | Cite as

Digital Impressions for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses

  • Sang J. LeeEmail author
  • Jason D. LeeEmail author
Digital and Esthetic Dentistry (P Stathopoulou and E Anadioti, Section Editors)
  • 132 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Digital and Esthetic Dentistry

Abstract

Purpose of Review

With the advent of CAD/CAM systems in dentistry, digital impressions have become an integral part of the treatment workflow in implant dentistry. The purpose of this article is to review the current status of digital impression systems, their applications within the digital workflow in implant dentistry, and the literature related to clinical viability in terms of its efficiency, accuracy, and patient-centered factors.

Recent Findings

The accuracy of intraoral scanners is similar to that of conventional impression techniques for single-crown and short-span fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) implant restorations. Clinical adjustment times were found to be shorter for dental implant crowns that were fabricated through a digital workflow than through a conventional one. Patients overwhelmingly prefer digital impressions over conventional methods in clinical studies.

Summary

Intraoral scanner systems are clinically viable tools for the taking of implant impressions, demonstrating comparable accuracy and improved efficiency as compared to conventional methods, when provided appropriate case selection. Conventional methods demonstrate better accuracy for full-arch cases and long-span FDPs. Due to the relative lack of clinical studies in this area, future investigative efforts should focus on in vivo investigation into the accuracy of digital implant impressions in a variety of clinical situations.

Keywords

Digital impression CAD/CAM Implant restoration Digital workflow 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human and animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc. 2008;139(6):761–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D. Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J. 2008;204(9):505–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    • Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313–21. This manuscript provides a comprehensive review of current intraoral digital impression techniques. Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e43312.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    • Flugge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29(3):277–83. This manuscript investigates the scanning precision of current intraoral and extraoral scanning systems. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chew AA, Esguerra RJ, Teoh KH, et al. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: effects of different scanners and implant level. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109(2):121–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(7):1759–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, et al. Internal fit of pressed and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;113(4):304–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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):553–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keul C, Stawarczyk B, Erdelt KJ, et al. Fit of 4-unit FDPs made of zirconia and CoCr-alloy after chairside and labside digitalization—a laboratory study. Dent Mater. 2014;30(4):400–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hassan B, Gimenez Gonzalez B, Tahmaseb A, Greven M, Wismeijer D. A digital approach integrating facial scanning in a CAD-CAM workflow for complete-mouth implant-supported rehabilitation of patients with edentulism: a pilot clinical study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Joda T, Wittneben JG, Bragger U. Digital implant impressions with the “Individualized Scanbody Technique” for emergence profile support. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(3):395–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    •• Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24(1):111–5. This manuscript is the first study comparing the efficiency of digital and conventional implant impressions. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lee SJ, Macarthur RX, Gallucci GO. An evaluation of student and clinician perception of digital and conventional implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(5):420–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, Att W. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2014;145(6):542–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (intraoral scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014;25(10):1113–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    •• Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, et al. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; This manuscript provides a comprehensive comparison between digital and conventional implant impressions in a randomized controlled trial setting. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schepke U, Meijer HJ, Kerdijk W, Cune MS. Digital versus analog complete-arch impressions for single-unit premolar implant crowns: operating time and patient preference. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):403–6. e1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    •• Joda T, Katsoulis J, Bragger U. Clinical fitting and adjustment time for implant-supported crowns comparing digital and conventional workflows. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2016;18(5):946–54. This manuscript compares clinical outcomes of digitally and conventionally fabricated implant restorations. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Joda T, Bragger U. Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(12):e185–e89.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karl M, Graef F, Schubinski P, Taylor T. Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. Quintessence Int. 2012;43(7):555–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    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(6):1281–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(6):715–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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(1):9–17.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    •• Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. Accuracy in the digital workflow: from data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(6):749–54. The study investigates the sources of cumulative errors in the digital workflow. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials SciencesHarvard School of Dental MedicineBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations