Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete‐arch implant‐supported prosthesis: A clinical study

Objectives The aim of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scan system (IOS) with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) compared with open tray implant impression (OI) for complete‐arch implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP). Materials and methods Patie...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical oral implants research 2024-08, Vol.35 (8), p.830-840
Hauptverfasser: Fu, Xiao‐Jiao, Liu, Min, Liu, Bei‐Lei, Tonetti, Maurizio S., Shi, Jun‐Yu, Lai, Hong‐Chang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives The aim of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scan system (IOS) with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) compared with open tray implant impression (OI) for complete‐arch implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP). Materials and methods Patients needing CIFDP were enrolled in this study. OI, reference standard, IOS with prefabricated aids, and SPG were performed for each patient. Distance and angle deviations between all pairs of abutment analogs, root mean square (RMS) errors between the aligned test and reference model, and chairside time were measured. The effect of inter‐abutment distance, jaw (maxilla or mandible), number of implants, and arch length on deviations was analyzed. The mixed effect model was applied to analyze deviations and RMS errors. Results Fifteen consecutive individuals (6 females and 9 males, 47–77 years old) with 22 arches (9 upper and 13 lower jaws) and 115 implants were included. There was no significant difference in distance deviation comparing SPG and IOS with OI (p > .05). IOS showed a significantly greater angle deviation and RMS errors than SPG (median 0.40° vs. 0.31°, 69 μm vs. 45 μm, p 
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.14183