A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses

Objectives To describe a new classification for intraoral scans based on the scan extension and to introduce a decision guideline to choose the scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Overview Multiple operator‐ and patient‐related factors have bee...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry 2024-01, Vol.36 (1), p.85-93
Hauptverfasser: Revilla‐León, Marta, Gómez‐Polo, Miguel, Kois, John C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 93
container_issue 1
container_start_page 85
container_title Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry
container_volume 36
creator Revilla‐León, Marta
Gómez‐Polo, Miguel
Kois, John C.
description Objectives To describe a new classification for intraoral scans based on the scan extension and to introduce a decision guideline to choose the scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Overview Multiple operator‐ and patient‐related factors have been identified that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scan extension. However, the decision criteria for selecting scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported restorations is unclear. Based on the extension of the intraoral digital scans, three types of scans can be defined: half‐arch (anterior or posterior), extended half‐arch, and complete‐arch scan. Variables to consider when choosing the scan extension include the number and location of units being restored, as well as the extension and location of edentulous areas. Additionally, the accuracy of the virtual definitive cast and the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured by using IOSs should be differentiated. Conclusions A decision tree for selecting the scan extension is presented. The decision is based on the number and location of units being restored, and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with reduced scan extension are indicated when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported crowns or short‐span fixed prostheses, when the patient does not have more than one missing tooth in the area of the dental arch included in the scan. For the remaining clinical conditions, complete‐arch intraoral scans are recommended. Clinical Significance Scan extension is a clinician's decision that should be based on the number and location of units being restored and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with a reduced scan extension is recommended, when possible.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/jerd.13143
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2872806638</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2872806638</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3573-9f046b9026d694de0dc057c16afeb41ef8b932f3c6412901dad90c93cae3062a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc1qFjEUhgdRbK1uvAAJuBFhan5mksmy1LZaCoLoOmSSk375mC8ZkwxtoQsvwWvslZg6rQsXZpEfeHhyznmb5jXBh6SuD1tI9pAw0rEnzT4ReGgH2uGn9d5J3nak7_eaFzlvMSa9kOJ5s8eEGGQF95vbI3S5eAvIxYQyTGCKD5eobAD5UJKOSU8oGx0QXBcI2ceArjYQkNNj8kavdIxlc_fzF9LBIr-bJx1KfeZlnmMqYJHz13W3EEq1zSnm6s-QXzbPnJ4yvHo4D5rvpyffjj-1F1_OPh8fXbSG9YK10uGOjxJTbrnsLGBrcC8M4drB2BFwwygZdczwjlCJidVWYiOZ0cAwp5odNO9Wb_36xwK5qJ3PBqZaJ8QlKzoIOmDO2VDRt_-g27ikUKtTVBJBaJ1mX6n3K2VqLzmBU3PyO51uFMHqPhN1n4n6k0mF3zwol3EH9i_6GEIFyApc-Qlu_qNS5ydfP67S38o_mls</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2917121555</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Revilla‐León, Marta ; Gómez‐Polo, Miguel ; Kois, John C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Revilla‐León, Marta ; Gómez‐Polo, Miguel ; Kois, John C.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives To describe a new classification for intraoral scans based on the scan extension and to introduce a decision guideline to choose the scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Overview Multiple operator‐ and patient‐related factors have been identified that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scan extension. However, the decision criteria for selecting scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported restorations is unclear. Based on the extension of the intraoral digital scans, three types of scans can be defined: half‐arch (anterior or posterior), extended half‐arch, and complete‐arch scan. Variables to consider when choosing the scan extension include the number and location of units being restored, as well as the extension and location of edentulous areas. Additionally, the accuracy of the virtual definitive cast and the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured by using IOSs should be differentiated. Conclusions A decision tree for selecting the scan extension is presented. The decision is based on the number and location of units being restored, and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with reduced scan extension are indicated when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported crowns or short‐span fixed prostheses, when the patient does not have more than one missing tooth in the area of the dental arch included in the scan. For the remaining clinical conditions, complete‐arch intraoral scans are recommended. Clinical Significance Scan extension is a clinician's decision that should be based on the number and location of units being restored and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with a reduced scan extension is recommended, when possible.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1496-4155</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1708-8240</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1708-8240</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jerd.13143</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37789708</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Accuracy ; Computer-Aided Design ; Dental Implants ; Dental Impression Technique ; digital impressions ; digital scans ; Edentulous ; esthetic dentistry ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; influencing factor ; intraoral scanners ; Models, Dental ; Mouth, Edentulous ; Prostheses ; Prosthetics ; scan extension ; Teeth</subject><ispartof>Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry, 2024-01, Vol.36 (1), p.85-93</ispartof><rights>2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><rights>2024 Wiley Periodicals LLC.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3573-9f046b9026d694de0dc057c16afeb41ef8b932f3c6412901dad90c93cae3062a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3573-9f046b9026d694de0dc057c16afeb41ef8b932f3c6412901dad90c93cae3062a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2854-1135</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjerd.13143$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjerd.13143$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37789708$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Revilla‐León, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez‐Polo, Miguel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kois, John C.</creatorcontrib><title>A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses</title><title>Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry</title><addtitle>J Esthet Restor Dent</addtitle><description>Objectives To describe a new classification for intraoral scans based on the scan extension and to introduce a decision guideline to choose the scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Overview Multiple operator‐ and patient‐related factors have been identified that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scan extension. However, the decision criteria for selecting scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported restorations is unclear. Based on the extension of the intraoral digital scans, three types of scans can be defined: half‐arch (anterior or posterior), extended half‐arch, and complete‐arch scan. Variables to consider when choosing the scan extension include the number and location of units being restored, as well as the extension and location of edentulous areas. Additionally, the accuracy of the virtual definitive cast and the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured by using IOSs should be differentiated. Conclusions A decision tree for selecting the scan extension is presented. The decision is based on the number and location of units being restored, and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with reduced scan extension are indicated when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported crowns or short‐span fixed prostheses, when the patient does not have more than one missing tooth in the area of the dental arch included in the scan. For the remaining clinical conditions, complete‐arch intraoral scans are recommended. Clinical Significance Scan extension is a clinician's decision that should be based on the number and location of units being restored and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with a reduced scan extension is recommended, when possible.</description><subject>Accuracy</subject><subject>Computer-Aided Design</subject><subject>Dental Implants</subject><subject>Dental Impression Technique</subject><subject>digital impressions</subject><subject>digital scans</subject><subject>Edentulous</subject><subject>esthetic dentistry</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</subject><subject>influencing factor</subject><subject>intraoral scanners</subject><subject>Models, Dental</subject><subject>Mouth, Edentulous</subject><subject>Prostheses</subject><subject>Prosthetics</subject><subject>scan extension</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><issn>1496-4155</issn><issn>1708-8240</issn><issn>1708-8240</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc1qFjEUhgdRbK1uvAAJuBFhan5mksmy1LZaCoLoOmSSk375mC8ZkwxtoQsvwWvslZg6rQsXZpEfeHhyznmb5jXBh6SuD1tI9pAw0rEnzT4ReGgH2uGn9d5J3nak7_eaFzlvMSa9kOJ5s8eEGGQF95vbI3S5eAvIxYQyTGCKD5eobAD5UJKOSU8oGx0QXBcI2ceArjYQkNNj8kavdIxlc_fzF9LBIr-bJx1KfeZlnmMqYJHz13W3EEq1zSnm6s-QXzbPnJ4yvHo4D5rvpyffjj-1F1_OPh8fXbSG9YK10uGOjxJTbrnsLGBrcC8M4drB2BFwwygZdczwjlCJidVWYiOZ0cAwp5odNO9Wb_36xwK5qJ3PBqZaJ8QlKzoIOmDO2VDRt_-g27ikUKtTVBJBaJ1mX6n3K2VqLzmBU3PyO51uFMHqPhN1n4n6k0mF3zwol3EH9i_6GEIFyApc-Qlu_qNS5ydfP67S38o_mls</recordid><startdate>202401</startdate><enddate>202401</enddate><creator>Revilla‐León, Marta</creator><creator>Gómez‐Polo, Miguel</creator><creator>Kois, John C.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2854-1135</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202401</creationdate><title>A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses</title><author>Revilla‐León, Marta ; Gómez‐Polo, Miguel ; Kois, John C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3573-9f046b9026d694de0dc057c16afeb41ef8b932f3c6412901dad90c93cae3062a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Accuracy</topic><topic>Computer-Aided Design</topic><topic>Dental Implants</topic><topic>Dental Impression Technique</topic><topic>digital impressions</topic><topic>digital scans</topic><topic>Edentulous</topic><topic>esthetic dentistry</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</topic><topic>influencing factor</topic><topic>intraoral scanners</topic><topic>Models, Dental</topic><topic>Mouth, Edentulous</topic><topic>Prostheses</topic><topic>Prosthetics</topic><topic>scan extension</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Revilla‐León, Marta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gómez‐Polo, Miguel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kois, John C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Revilla‐León, Marta</au><au>Gómez‐Polo, Miguel</au><au>Kois, John C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses</atitle><jtitle>Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry</jtitle><addtitle>J Esthet Restor Dent</addtitle><date>2024-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>85</spage><epage>93</epage><pages>85-93</pages><issn>1496-4155</issn><issn>1708-8240</issn><eissn>1708-8240</eissn><abstract>Objectives To describe a new classification for intraoral scans based on the scan extension and to introduce a decision guideline to choose the scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Overview Multiple operator‐ and patient‐related factors have been identified that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scan extension. However, the decision criteria for selecting scan extension for fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported restorations is unclear. Based on the extension of the intraoral digital scans, three types of scans can be defined: half‐arch (anterior or posterior), extended half‐arch, and complete‐arch scan. Variables to consider when choosing the scan extension include the number and location of units being restored, as well as the extension and location of edentulous areas. Additionally, the accuracy of the virtual definitive cast and the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured by using IOSs should be differentiated. Conclusions A decision tree for selecting the scan extension is presented. The decision is based on the number and location of units being restored, and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with reduced scan extension are indicated when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported crowns or short‐span fixed prostheses, when the patient does not have more than one missing tooth in the area of the dental arch included in the scan. For the remaining clinical conditions, complete‐arch intraoral scans are recommended. Clinical Significance Scan extension is a clinician's decision that should be based on the number and location of units being restored and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with a reduced scan extension is recommended, when possible.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>37789708</pmid><doi>10.1111/jerd.13143</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2854-1135</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1496-4155
ispartof Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry, 2024-01, Vol.36 (1), p.85-93
issn 1496-4155
1708-8240
1708-8240
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2872806638
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Accuracy
Computer-Aided Design
Dental Implants
Dental Impression Technique
digital impressions
digital scans
Edentulous
esthetic dentistry
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
influencing factor
intraoral scanners
Models, Dental
Mouth, Edentulous
Prostheses
Prosthetics
scan extension
Teeth
title A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth‐ and implant‐supported fixed dental prostheses
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T09%3A30%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20guide%20for%20selecting%20the%20intraoral%20scan%20extension%20when%20fabricating%20tooth%E2%80%90%20and%20implant%E2%80%90supported%20fixed%20dental%20prostheses&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20esthetic%20and%20restorative%20dentistry&rft.au=Revilla%E2%80%90Le%C3%B3n,%20Marta&rft.date=2024-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=85&rft.epage=93&rft.pages=85-93&rft.issn=1496-4155&rft.eissn=1708-8240&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jerd.13143&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2872806638%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2917121555&rft_id=info:pmid/37789708&rfr_iscdi=true