Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of intraoral digital impressions for obtaining gingival contour in the esthetic zone: accuracy outcomes

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

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for gingival contour captured in the esthetic zone in vivo.

Material and methods

Five participants with full upper dentition were recruited. For each participant, three scans were taken using two intraoral scanning (IOS) systems (3Shape TRIOS Color, TRC; CEREC Omnicam, OC) respectively; three conventional impressions (CIs) were taken using vinyl polysiloxane materials. The CIs of all participants were casted and then digitized with a model scanner (IScan D103i, Imetric). Precision was evaluated by superimposing three repeated STL datasets per participant within each group and calculating the (90th-10th)percentile/2 values. The CIs were the reference for evaluating the level of system error of the two IOS systems from the true value. Digital models from CI and each IOS group were superimposed and (mean positive deviation-mean negative deviation)/2[mean negative deviation, mean positive deviation] were calculated to assess trueness level of the two IOS systems.

Results

For the soft tissue acquisition, precision results of each group were 45.10 ± 12.54 μm in TRC, 66.04 ± 13.46 μm in OC, and 63.66 ± 17.19 in CI (TRC vs OC, p < 0.001; TRC vs CI, p = 0.001; OC vs CI, p = 0.66). Trueness results were 80.12 ± 8.69[− 112.10 ± 9.88, 48.13 ± 13.79] μm in TRC and 82.70 ± 8.85[− 121.41 ± 15.40, 43.98 ± 11.86] μm (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

In dentate situations, the two tested IOS systems achieved a clinically satisfying accuracy for capturing gingival contour in anterior maxilla, with a comparable or superior precision to the CI. TRC achieved a similar trueness and a higher precision level compared with OC.

Clinical relevance

Intraoral digital impressions could be a recommended method for recording 3-dimensional gingival contour in the esthetic zone.

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. Thoma DS, Buranawat B, Hammerle CH, Held U, Jung RE (2014) Efficacy of soft tissue augmentation around dental implants and in partially edentulous areas: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 41(Suppl 15):S77–S91. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ronay V, Sahrmann P, Bindl A, Attin T, Schmidlin PR (2011) Current status and perspectives of mucogingival soft tissue measurement methods. J Esthet Restor Dent 23(3):146–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00424.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roccuzzo M, Gaudioso L, Bunino M, Dalmasso P (2014) Surgical treatment of buccal soft tissue recessions around single implants: 1-year results from a prospective pilot study. Clin Oral Implan Res 25(6):641–646. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lin CY, Chen Z, Pan WL, Wang HL (2018) Impact of timing on soft tissue augmentation during implant treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13148

  5. Benic GI, Wolleb K, Sancho-Puchades M, Hammerle CH (2012) Systematic review of parameters and methods for the professional assessment of aesthetics in dental implant research. J Clin Periodontol 39(Suppl 12):160–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01840.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Benic GI, Ge Y, Gallucci GO, Jung RE, Schneider D, Hammerle CH (2017) Guided bone regeneration and abutment connection augment the buccal soft tissue contour: 3-year results of a prospective comparative clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 28(2):219–225. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bienz SP, Sailer I, Sanz-Martin I, Jung RE, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS (2017) Volumetric changes at pontic sites with or without soft tissue grafting: a controlled clinical study with a 10-year follow-up. J Clin Periodontol 44(2):178–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12651

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zeltner M, Jung RE, Hammerle CH, Husler J, Thoma DS (2017) Randomized controlled clinical study comparing a volume-stable collagen matrix to autogenous connective tissue grafts for soft tissue augmentation at implant sites: linear volumetric soft tissue changes up to 3 months. J Clin Periodontol 44(4):446–453. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12697

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sanz-Martin I, Sailer I, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS (2016) Soft tissue stability and volumetric changes after 5 years in pontic sites with or without soft tissue grafting: a retrospective cohort study. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(8):969–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12743

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sanz Martin I, Benic GI, Hammerle CH, Thoma DS (2016) Prospective randomized controlled clinical study comparing two dental implant types: volumetric soft tissue changes at 1 year of loading. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(4):406–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Thoma DS, Jung RE, Schneider D, Cochran DL, Ender A, Jones AA, Gorlach C, Uebersax L, Graf-Hausner U, Hammerle CHF (2010) Soft tissue volume augmentation by the use of collagen-based matrices: a volumetric analysis. J Clin Periodontol 37(7):659–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2010.01581.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gonzalez-Martin O, Veltri M, Moraguez O, Belser UC (2014) Quantitative three-dimensional methodology to assess volumetric and profilometric outcome of subepithelial connective tissue grafting at pontic sites: a prospective pilot study. Int J Periodont Rest 34(5):673–679. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.1808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 

  14. Schneider D, Ender A, Truninger T, Leutert C, Sahrmann P, Roos M, Schmidlin P (2014) Comparison between clinical and digital soft tissue measurements. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 26(3):191–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12084

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA (2014) Patients’ preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(10):1113–1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Joda T, Bragger U (2016) Patient-centered outcomes comparing digital and conventional implant impression procedures: a randomized crossover trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(12):e185–e189. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12600

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Deferm JT, Schreurs R, Baan F, Bruggink R, Merkx MAW, Xi T, Berge SJ, Maal TJJ (2017) Validation of 3D documentation of palatal soft tissue shape, color, and irregularity with intraoral scanning. Clin Oral Investig. 22:1303–1309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2198-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Joda T, Ferrari M, Gallucci GO, Wittneben JG (2000) Bragger U (2017) Digital technology in fixed implant prosthodontics. Periodontol 73(1):178–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Joda T (2015) Time-dependent supraimplant mucosa changes: short communication. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30(3):619–621. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4105

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Monaco C, Evangelisti E, Scotti R, Mignani G, Zucchelli G (2016) A fully digital approach to replicate peri-implant soft tissue contours and emergence profile in the esthetic zone. Clin Oral Implants Res 27(12):1511–1514. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Joda T, Ferrari M, Braegger U (2016) A digital approach for one-step formation of the supra-implant emergence profile with an individualized CAD/CAM healing abutment. J Prosthodont Res 60(3):220–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2016.01.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rojo E, Stroppa G, Sanz-Martin I, Gonzalez-Martin O, Alemany AS, Nart J (2018) Soft tissue volume gain around dental implants using autogenous subepithelial connective tissue grafts harvested from the lateral palate or tuberosity area. A randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 45(4):495–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12869

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J (2016) Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence International 47(4):343–349. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a35524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ender A, Mehl A (2013) Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 16(1):11–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zimmermann M, Mehl A, Mormann WH, Reich S (2015) Intraoral scanning systems—a current overview. Int J Comput Dent 18(2):101–129

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 

  27. Bergin JM, Rubenstein JE, Mancl L, Brudvik JS, Raigrodski AJ (2013) An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 110(4):243–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60370-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 

  30. Ender A, Mehl A (2014) Accuracy in dental medicine, a new way to measure trueness and precision. J Vis Exp 86. https://doi.org/10.3791/51374

  31. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO (2015) Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 26(6):715–719. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A (2016) In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 20(7):1495–1504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1641-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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 

  34. Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T (2016) Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS One 11(7):e0158800. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158800

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. 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 

  36. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G (2015) Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters. Implant Dent 24(5):498–504. https://doi.org/10.1097/ID.0000000000000283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW (2014) Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 111(3):186–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology & National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology for their instrument supply and technical support. The author thanks Tong Zhao, the dental technician from the Department of Oral Implantology at Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology in Beijing for her support in techniques and materials.

Funding

The work was supported by the Department of Oral Implantology and National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology in Beijing, China.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral Implantology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, 100081, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Donghao Wei, Ping Di, Jiehua Tian & Ye Lin

  2. Center of Digital Dentistry, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Yijiao Zhao

  3. National Engineering Laboratory for Digital and Material Technology of Stomatology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Yijiao Zhao

  4. Beijing Key Laboratory of Digital Stomatology, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Yijiao Zhao

Authors
  1. Donghao Wei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ping Di
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiehua Tian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yijiao Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Ye Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ye Lin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants 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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

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

Wei, D., Di, P., Tian, J. et al. Evaluation of intraoral digital impressions for obtaining gingival contour in the esthetic zone: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Invest 24, 1401–1410 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03105-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03105-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation