Department of Prosthodontics, Gangnam Severance Dental Hospital, College of Dentistry, Yonsei University1
Accurate impression is essential factor for prosthesis fabrication. Various impression techniques have been used to generate a definitive cast that will ensure the accurate clinical fit of implant fixed complete dental prosthesis. Intraoral scanners can take implant impressions using light beam without impression material or individual tray which were used by conventional technique. Also, digital implant impression can eliminate the distortion of impression material, infection, selection of tray and reduce the patients’ discomfort. Purpose of this study was taking the efficient digital impressions through knowing the characteristic and principle of various intraoral scanners. At 1986, Mormannn et al. developed the CEREC (Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics, Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) system which was used to make inlay milling the feldspathic porcelain at chairside and this was beginning of CAD/CAM (computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing) instruments at dentistry.There are many characteristic and limits of digital impression using intraoral scanner. Each intraoral scanner has specific instructions and principles. Obtaining digital impression using intraoral scanner with attention, it may express better result, reduce the time and cost than conventional impression technique. And it is considered to deliver satisfactory prosthesis to patients.
1. Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Weber A, et al. Clinical parameters influencing the accuracy of 1- and 2-stage impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Prosthodont. 2008; 21: 322-7.
2. Papaspyridakos P, Lal K, White GS, et al. Effect of splinted and nonsplinted impression techniques on the accuracy of fit of fixed digital prostheses in edentulous patients: A comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2011; 26: 1267-1272.
3. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, et al. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant supported fixed partial dentures. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2004; 15: 466-473.
4. Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogram-metric technique. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 1995; 6: 172-180.
5. Mormann WH. The evolution of the CEREC system. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006; 137(suppl): 7-13.
6. Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015; 24(4): 313± 321.
7. Logozzo S, Zanetti EL, Franceschini G, et al. Recent advances in dental optics-Part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry. Opt Lasers Eng. 2014; 54: 203-221.
8. Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, et al. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2012; 16: 851-856.
9. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: Deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140: 1301-1304.
10. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, et al. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2014; 111: 186-194.
11. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, et al. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Implants. 2014; 29: 853-862.
12. Ng J, Ruse D, Wyatt C. A comparison of the marginal fit of crowns fabricated with digital and conven-tional methods. J Prosthet Dent Journal of Prosthetic Dent. 2014; 112(3): 555-560.
13. Ueda K, Beuer F, Stimmelmayr M, et al. Fit of 4-unit FDPs from CoCr and zirconia after conventional and digital impressions. Clin Oral Investig. 2016; 20(2): 283-289.
14. Duret F, Preston JD. CAD/CAM imaging in dentistry. Curr Opin Dent. 1991; 1: 150-154.
15. Kim JH. Evaluation of the intraoral scanning technique and the fitness of all-ceramic restoration in the digital workflow. Graduate school of Korea University; 2014.
16. Hong YS, Park EJ, Kim SJ, et al. Customized abutment and screw-type implant prostheses after cementation based on the digital intra-oral impression technique. J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2012; 50: 67-73.
17. Paddock SW, Eliceiri KW. Laser scanning confocal microscopy: history, applications, and related optical sectioning techniques. Methods Mol Biol. 2014; 1075: 9-47.
18. Ji Z, Leu MC. Design of optical triangulation devices. Opt Laser Technol. 1989; 21(5): 339-341.
19. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, et al. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One. 2012; 7(8): e43312.
20. Kachalia PR, Geissberger MJ. Dentistry a la carte: in-office CAD/CAM technology. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2010; 38(5): 323-330.
21. Costa MFM. Surface inspection by an optical triangulation method. Opt Eng. 1996; 35(9): 2743-2747.
22. Podoleanu AG. Optical coherence tomography. J Microsc. 2012; 247(3): 209-219.
23. Prati F, Regar E, Mintz GS, et al. Expert’s OCT Review Document. Expert review document on methodology, terminology, and clinical applications of optical coherence tomography: physical principles, methodology of image acquisition, and clinical application for assessment of coronary arteries and atherosclerosis. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(4): 401-15.
24. Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, et al. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent. 2010; 38(7): 553-559.
25. Lee GT. Accuracy of digitized dental model made from white light scanner according to different scanning method. Graduate school of Korea University; 2013.
26. Kim SR. Comparison of parallel confocal laser scanning impression with conventional silicone impression regarding the marginal fitness and internal fitness of zirconia core. Graduate school of Korea University; 2011.
27. Christensen GJ. The state of fixed prosthodontic impressions: room for improvement. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136: 343-6.
28. Rudolph H, Luthardt RG, Walter MH. Computer-aided analysis of the influence of digitizing and surfacing on the accuracy in dental CAD/CAM tech- nology. Comput Biol Med. 2007; 37(5): 579-587.
29. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. Conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2013; 24: 111-115.
30. Fluegge T, Att W, Metzger M, et al. A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies an experimental approach. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2017; 26: 34-41.
31. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-8.
32. Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, et al. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 277-83.
33. Francesco GM, Giovanni V, Uii H, et al. Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study (2016). PLoS ONE. 11(9)
34. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, et al. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 00, 2016, 1-8.
35. Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, et al. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 000, 2016, 1-6.