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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry 2024-01, Vol.36 (1), p.85-93 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & 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 & 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 |