Digital Impressions for Implant-Supported Fixed Dental Prostheses
- 132 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsDigital impression CAD/CAM Implant restoration Digital workflow
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 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
- 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.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.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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