Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wostmann B, Rehmann P, Balkenhol M (2009) Accuracy of impressions obtained with dual-arch trays. Int J Prosthodont 22:158–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Small BW (2012) Revisiting impressions using dual-arch trays. Gen Dent 60:379–381

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 6:50–55

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goldstein JH, Werrin SR (2007) InLab CEREC restorations from a dual-arch impression. Dent Today 26(62):64

    Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cayouette MJ, Burgess JO, Jones Jr RE, Yuan CH (2003) Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays. Quintessence Int 34:189–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Abrams SH (2002) Benefits of the dual-arch impression technique. Accurate impressions and fewer than 1 % remakes. Dent Today 21:56–59

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cayouette M, Burgess J, Jones RJ, Yuan C (2003) Three-dimensional analysis of dual-arch impression trays. Quintessence Int 34:189–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Larson T, Nielsen M, Brackett W (2002) The accuracy of dual-arch impressions: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 87:625–627

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mormann W (2006) The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc 137(Suppl):7S–13S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 53:195–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mattiola A, Mormann W, Lutz F (1995) The computer-generated occlusion of cerec-2 inlays and onlays. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 105:1284–1290

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Christensen G (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Luthardt R, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ziegler M (2009) Digital impression taking with reproducibly high precision. Int J Comput Dent 12:159–163

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 87:204–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 82:438–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 37:579–587

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Jedynakiewicz N, Martin N (2001) CEREC: science, research, and clinical application. Compend Contin Educ Dent 22:7–13

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Arnetzl G (2006) Different ceramic technologies in a clinical long-term comparison. Book title, Quintessenz London

    Google Scholar 

  39. Reiss B, Walther W (2000) Clinical long-term results and 10-year Kaplan-Meier analysis of cerec restorations. Int J Comput Dent 3:9–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Hoyos A, Soderholm K (2011) Influence of tray rigidity and impression technique on accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impressions. Int J Prosthodont 24:49–54

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16:11–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim SY et al. (2013) Accuracy of dies captured by an intraoral digital impression system using parallel confocal imaging. Int J Prosthodont 26:161–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ting-Shu S, Jian S (2014) Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. doi:10.1111/jopr.12218

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division for Computerized Restorative Dentistry, Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Andreas Ender, Moritz Zimmermann & Albert Mehl

  2. Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland

    Thomas Attin

Authors
  1. Andreas Ender
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Moritz Zimmermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Attin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Albert Mehl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas Ender.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ender, A., Zimmermann, M., Attin, T. et al. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Invest 20, 1495–1504 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation