File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Non‐invasive oral implant position assessment: An ex vivo study using a 3D industrial scan as the reference model to mimic the clinical situation

TitleNon‐invasive oral implant position assessment: An ex vivo study using a 3D industrial scan as the reference model to mimic the clinical situation
Authors
Keywordsaccuracy
CBCT
conventional impression
implant position
intraoral scan
oral implant
Issue Date1-Nov-2023
PublisherWiley
Citation
Clinical Oral Implants Research, 2023 How to Cite?
Abstract

Aim

To introduce an objective method to evaluate the accuracy of implant position assessment in partially edentulous patients by comparing different techniques (conventional impression, intraoral scan, CBCT) to a reference 3D model obtained with an industrial scanner, the latter mimicking the clinical situation.

Materials and Methods

Twenty-nine implants were placed in four human cadaver heads using a fully guided flapless protocol. Implant position was assessed using (a) a conventional impression, (b) an intraoral scan, and (c) CBCT and compared to an industrial scan. Three-dimensional models of intraoral scan body and implant were registered to the arch models and the deviation at implant shoulder, apex, and the angle of deviation were compared to each other as well as to the reference model.

Results

The three assessment techniques showed statistically significant deviations (p < .01) from the industrial scan, for all measurements, with no difference between the techniques. The maximum deviation at the implant shoulder was 0.16 mm. At the implant apex this increased to 0.38 mm. The intraoral scan deviated significantly more than the CBCT (0.12 mm, p < .01) and the conventional impression (0.10 mm, p = .02). The maximum implant angle deviation was 1.0°. The intraoral scan deviated more than the conventional impression (0.3°, p = .02).

Conclusion

All assessment techniques deviated from the reference industrial scan, but the differences were relatively small. Intraoral scans were slightly less accurate than both conventional impressions and CBCT. Depending on the application, however, this inaccuracy may not be clinically relevant.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/339173
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.8
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.865
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTarce, Mihai-
dc.contributor.authorBecker, Kathrin-
dc.contributor.authorLahoud, Pierre-
dc.contributor.authorShujaat, Sohaib-
dc.contributor.authorJacobs, Reinhilde-
dc.contributor.authorQuirynen, Marc -
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T10:34:26Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T10:34:26Z-
dc.date.issued2023-11-01-
dc.identifier.citationClinical Oral Implants Research, 2023-
dc.identifier.issn0905-7161-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/339173-
dc.description.abstract<h3>Aim</h3><p>To introduce an objective method to evaluate the accuracy of implant position assessment in partially edentulous patients by comparing different techniques (conventional impression, intraoral scan, CBCT) to a reference 3D model obtained with an industrial scanner, the latter mimicking the clinical situation.</p><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><p>Twenty-nine implants were placed in four human cadaver heads using a fully guided flapless protocol. Implant position was assessed using (a) a conventional impression, (b) an intraoral scan, and (c) CBCT and compared to an industrial scan. Three-dimensional models of intraoral scan body and implant were registered to the arch models and the deviation at implant shoulder, apex, and the angle of deviation were compared to each other as well as to the reference model.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>The three assessment techniques showed statistically significant deviations (<em>p</em> < .01) from the industrial scan, for all measurements, with no difference between the techniques. The maximum deviation at the implant shoulder was 0.16 mm. At the implant apex this increased to 0.38 mm. The intraoral scan deviated significantly more than the CBCT (0.12 mm, <em>p</em> < .01) and the conventional impression (0.10 mm, <em>p</em> = .02). The maximum implant angle deviation was 1.0°. The intraoral scan deviated more than the conventional impression (0.3°, <em>p</em> = .02).</p><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>All assessment techniques deviated from the reference industrial scan, but the differences were relatively small. Intraoral scans were slightly less accurate than both conventional impressions and CBCT. Depending on the application, however, this inaccuracy may not be clinically relevant.</p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-
dc.relation.ispartofClinical Oral Implants Research-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectaccuracy-
dc.subjectCBCT-
dc.subjectconventional impression-
dc.subjectimplant position-
dc.subjectintraoral scan-
dc.subjectoral implant-
dc.titleNon‐invasive oral implant position assessment: An ex vivo study using a 3D industrial scan as the reference model to mimic the clinical situation-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.14206-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85176459471-
dc.identifier.eissn1600-0501-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:001103401800001-
dc.identifier.issnl0905-7161-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats