Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study

Shaikha Alkindi; Zaid Hamdoon; Ahmed M Aziz

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105045

Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study

J Dent. 2024 May 5:146:105045. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105045. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Shaikha Alkindi¹, Zaid Hamdoon², Ahmed M Aziz³

Affiliations

¹ Ministry of Health, Sharjah, UAE.
² Department of Oral and Craniofacial Health Sciences, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE.
³ Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE. Electronic address: a.aziz@sharjah.ac.ae.

PMID: 38714241
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105045

Abstract

Objectives: This in vitro study compared the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for angulated and straight implants using two different impression coping and scan body designs.

Methods: Two implant systems were used: Straumann and Dentegris. Two implants were placed for each system, straight and angulated at 15 degrees mesiodistally. Conventional impressions were made using the splinted open-tray technique using narrow impression coping (NIC) and wide impression coping (WIC). The stone casts produced from the conventional impression were digitized with a lab scanner (3Shape D2000). Digital impressions were made using four intraoral scanners (IOS): 3Shape Trios 3, Medit i700, Cerec Omnicam, and Emerald Planmeca using short scanbodies (SSB) and long scanbodies (LSB). The scanning was repeated ten times to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The distance and angle deviations between impression copings and scanbodies were measured in reference to the master model.

Results: The trueness and precision of SSB and WIC were significantly better than LSB and NIC (p<0.001). The range trueness of the platform deviation was better with SSB (37.1 to 51.9) than LSB (89.6 to 127.9 μm) and for WIC than NIC in conventional impressions (58.2 and 75.1 μm, respectively). The trueness of the angle deviation of digital scans with SSB (0.11 to 0.25 degrees) was significantly better than scans with LSB (0.31 to 0.57 degrees) and for WIC than NIC (0.21 and 0.52 degrees, respectively). The precision of the platform deviation of digital scans with SSB (12.4 to 34.5 μm) was higher than other scans and conventional impressions (42.9 to 71.4 μm). The precision of the angle deviation of Medit i700 and Trios 3 with SSB (0.17 and 0.20 degrees, respectively) was higher than other scans with SSB and conventional impressions (0.54 to 1.63 degrees).

Conclusions: Digital scans with SSB were more accurate than conventional splinted open-tray impressions. The type of impression coping and scanbody significantly affected the impression accuracy.

Clinical significance: The use of a short scanbody can increase the accuracy of digital impressions, and wide impression coping can increase the accuracy of conventional impressions, resulting in improved clinical outcomes.

Keywords: Accuracy; Angulation; Dental implants; Digital impressions; Impression technique.