Accuracy of Digital and Conventional implant impressions: a literature review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5335/rfo.v30i1.16696Keywords:
dental implants, dental impression technique, denture precision attachmentAbstract
Introduction: The impression phase to obtain the implant prosthesis is fundamental, the impression technique should be the most precise to have an ideal work model and, therefore to finally reach a passive implant crown. Objective: This literature review research enlightens the main characteristics, indications, limitations, advantages, and disadvantages of digital and conventional impressions. Method: The literature review was conducted using the PubMed database to obtain scientific articles, including in vitro studies, randomized controlled clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis. The articles were selected looking to accomplish the objective of this review. Literature review: The conventional technique has been used for many years and is considered the gold standard. However, the digital impression is taking place, eliminating clinical and laboratory steps, and increasing the users number. It depends on the clinician's familiarity and willingness to invest and learn in the technology. Conclusion: Both impression techniques, conventional and digital, have particular characteristics, indications, limitations, advantages, and drawbacks. Yet, the researchers keep finding solutions to overcome the daily clinical challenges of digital tools to equalize investment and technology usage.
Downloads
References
MISCH, C. E. Implantes dentais: contemporâneos. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier Editora, 2008.
HAMALIAN, T. A.; NASR, E.; CHIDIAC, J. J. Impression materials in fixed prosthodontics: influence of choice on clinical procedure. Journal of Prosthodontics: Official Journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, v. 20, n. 2, p. 153–160, 1 fev. 2011. Disponível em: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21284760.
GALLUCCI, G. O.; EVANS, C.; TAHMASEB, A. Digital Workflows in Implant Dentistry. Berlin: Quintessenz Verlag, 2019.
NEVES, F. D.; BARBOSA, G. A.; BERNARDES, S. R. Fundamentos da Prótese sobre Implantes. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier Editora, 2016.
CHRISTENSEN, G. J. What category of impression material is best for your practice? The Journal of the American Dental Association, v. 128, n. 7, p. 1026–1028, jul. 1997.
DAVIDOWITZ, G.; KOTICK, P. G. The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dental Clinics of North America, v. 55, n. 3, p. 559–570, jul. 2011. Disponível em: https://www.dental.theclinics.com/article/S0011-8532(11)00025-5/pdf.
HOLST, S. et al. Influence of impression material and time on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant impressions. Quintessence International, v. 38, n. 1, p. 67–73, 1 jan. 2007.
BUZAYAN, M.; BAIG, M. R.; YUNUS, N. Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials. The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, v. 28, n. 6, p. 1512–1520, 2013.
WISMEIJER, D. et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: Digital technologies. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 29, supl. 16, p. 436–442, out. 2018. Disponível em: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/clr.13309.
MICHELINAKIS, G. et al. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health, v. 21, n. 1, p. 1–24, 21 jan. 2021.
DERKSEN, W. et al. Group 2 ITI Consensus Report: Technological developments in implant prosthetics. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 34, supl. 26, p. 104–111, 1 set. 2023.
SPALTHOFF, S. et al. Comparison of conventional and digital workflow for dental rehabilitation with a novel patient-specific framework implant system: an experimental dataset evaluation. International Journal of Implant Dentistry, v. 8, n. 1, 24 jan. 2022.
GIMENEZ-GONZALEZ, B. et al. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. Journal of Prosthodontics, v. 26, n. 8, p. 650–655, 2 mar. 2016.
FLÜGGE, T. et al. Digital implantology—a review of virtual planning software for guided implant surgery. Part II: Prosthetic set-up and virtual implant planning. BMC Oral Health, v. 22, n. 1, p. 374–392, 30 jan. 2022.
BUSER, D.; SENNERBY, L.; DE BRUYN, H. Modern implant dentistry based on osseointegration: 50 years of progress, current trends and open questions. Periodontology 2000, v. 73, n. 1, p. 7–21, 21 dez. 2016.
CHOCHLIDAKIS, K. M. et al. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, v. 116, n. 2, p. 184-190.e12, ago. 2016.
JEMT, T.; BOOK, K. Prosthesis misfit and marginal bone loss in edentulous implant patients. PubMed, v. 11, n. 5, p. 620–625, 1 set. 1996.
SAHIN, S.; ÇEHRELI, M. C. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: Current status. Implant Dentistry, v. 10, n. 2, p. 85–92, jun. 2001.
ENDER, A.; MEHL, A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions—an in-vitro study. Quintessence International, v. 14, n. 1, p. 11–21, 1 jan. 2011.
JOKSTAD, A. et al. Fabrication, workflow and delivery of reconstruction: Summary and consensus statements of group 4. The 6th EAO Consensus Conference 2021. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 32, supl. 21, p. 336–341, out. 2021.
SAILER, I. et al. Randomized controlled clinical trial of digital and conventional workflows for the fabrication of zirconia-ceramic fixed partial dentures. Part I: Time efficiency of complete-arch digital scans versus conventional impressions. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, v. 121, n. 1, p. 69–75, jan. 2019.
SAKORNWIMON, N.; LEEVAILOJ, C. Clinical marginal fit of zirconia crowns and patients’ preferences for impression techniques using intraoral digital scanner versus polyvinyl siloxane material. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, v. 118, n. 3, p. 386–391, set. 2017.
SIQUEIRA, R. et al. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: a systematic review. Clinical Oral Investigations, 27 set. 2021.
AMIN, S. et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 28, n. 11, p. 1360–1367, 31 dez. 2016.
PAPASPIRYDAKOS, P. et al. Complete digital workflow for mandibular fullâ€arch implant rehabilitation in 3 appointments. Journal of Prosthodontics, v. 30, n. 6, p. 548-552, 20 jul. 2021.
MÜHLEMANN, S. et al. Time efficiency and efficacy of a centralized CAD/CAM workflow for implant crown fabrication: A prospective controlled clinical study. Journal of Dentistry, v. 127, p. 104332, 1 dez. 2022. Disponível em: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571222003876.
BERNAUER, S. A.; ZITZMANN, N. U.; JODA, T. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics updated: a systematic review. Healthcare, v. 11, n. 5, p. 679, 25 fev. 2023.
PAPASPIRYDAKOS, P. et al. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 27, n. 4, p. 465–472, 13 fev. 2015.
FLORIANI, F. et al. Linear accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions of implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Dentistry, v. 17, n. 4, p. 964-973, out. 2023.
MARGHALANI, A.; WEBER, H. P.; FINKELMAN, M.; KUDARA, Y.; EL RAFIE, K.; PAPASPYRIDAKOS, P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, v. 119, n. 4, p. 574–579, abr. 2018. Disponível em: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022391317304924.
VAN DER MEER, W. J.; ANDRIESSEN, F. S.; WISMEIJER, D.; REN, Y. Application of Intra-Oral Dental Scanners in the Digital Workflow of Implantology. PLoS ONE, v. 7, n. 8, e43312, 22 ago. 2012.
JODA, T.; ZARONE, F.; FERRARI, M. The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review. BMC Oral Health, v. 17, n. 1, p. 1-9, 19 set. 2017.
PAPASPYRIDAKOS, P. et al. Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Metaâ€Analysis. Journal of Prosthodontics, v. 29, n. 8, p. 660-678, 16 jul. 2020.
MARINIS, A. et al. Digital Workflow for Double Complete Arch Zirconia Prostheses Utilizing a Novel Scan Body. Journal of Prosthodontics, v. 31, n. 1, p. 4–8, 12 set. 2021.
VENEZIA, P. et al. Full Digital Workflow for the Treatment of an Edentulous Patient with Guided Surgery, Immediate Loading and 3D-Printed Hybrid Prosthesis: The BARI Technique 2.0. A Case Report. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, v. 16, n. 24, p. 5160, 17 dez. 2019.
ALSHAWAF, B. et al. Accuracy of printed casts generated from digital implant impressions versus stone casts from conventional implant impressions: A comparative in vitro study. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 29, n. 8, p. 835–842, 21 jun. 2018.
LEE, S. J. et al. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 26, n. 6, p. 715–719, 10 abr. 2014. Disponível em: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4428303/.
PAPASPYRIDAKOS, P. et al. Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, v. 124, n. 5, p. 589-593, nov. 2020.
PAPASPYRIDAKOS, P.; LAL, K. Computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing zirconia implant fixed complete prostheses: clinical results and technical complications up to 4 years of function. Clinical Oral Implants Research, v. 24, n. 6, p. 659–665, 13 mar. 2012.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial-SemDerivações 4.0 Internacional.
