Search Results (8)

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to compare the final impressions obtained using three different impression techniques in completely edentulous patients, focusing on the clinical applicability of the JB Tray^® for immediate custom tray fabrication with a polycaprolactone-based thermoplastic resin. Methods: Five edentulous patients were recruited for a preliminary clinical evaluation, and three impression techniques were tested: (1) JB Tray^® (JB), which allows simultaneous border molding and final impression taking; (2) the conventional modeling compound border-molded technique (MC, control); and (3) the one-step silicone border-molded technique (OS). All impressions were made by a single prosthodontist, and the internal surfaces were digitized using a 3D scanner for analysis of internal fit. Each arch was divided into reference regions for quantitative comparison. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: Color map analysis (threshold of ±1.0 mm) revealed that the JB Tray^® group exhibited wider border extension in both the maxilla and mandible compared with the modeling compound and silicone groups, with a more pronounced effect in the mandible. However, no statistically significant differences in overall internal fit were observed among the three methods (p > 0.05). Conclusions: These preliminary results due to small sample size suggest that the JB Tray^® enables efficient impression taking in edentulous patients and can serve as a viable alternative to conventional custom tray techniques. Further research with a larger sample size is warranted to support widespread clinical application. Full article

The aim of this study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane impressions differing in terms of curing time (regular-setting (RS) or fast-setting (FS)) in combination with different tray materials (metal (M) and plastic (P)). A typodont reference model simulated a partially edentulous maxilla. Reference points were given by center points of either precision balls welded to specific teeth or finishing-line centers of prepared teeth. These reference points enabled the detection of dimensional deviations between the digitized reference and the scans of the models achieved from the study impressions. Twenty impressions were made for each of the following four test groups: RS-M, RS-P, FS-M and FS-P. Global scan data accuracy was measured by distance and tooth axis deviations from the reference, while local accuracy was determined based on the trueness and precision of the abutment tooth surfaces. Statistical analysis was conducted using ANOVA accompanied by pairwise Tukey post hoc tests (α = 0.05). Most of the distances tended to be underestimated. Global accuracy was favorable; even for long distances, the mean absolute distance deviations were < 100 µm. Local accuracy was excellent for all test groups, with trueness ≤ 11 µm and precision ≤ 9 µm. Within the limitations of this study, all impression and tray materials were suitable to fabricate models with clinically acceptable accuracy. Full article

The use of computerized optical impression making (COIM) for the fabrication of removable dentures for partially edentulous jaws is a rising trend in dental prosthetics. However, the accuracy of this method compared with that of traditional impression-making techniques remains uncertain. We therefore decided to evaluate the accuracy of COIM in the context of partially edentulous jaws in an in vivo setting. Twelve partially edentulous patients with different Kennedy classes underwent both a conventional impression (CI) and a computerized optical impression (COI) procedure. The CI was then digitized and compared with the COI data using 3D analysis software. Four different comparison situations were assessed: Whole Jaw (WJ), Mucosa with Residual Teeth (M_RT), Isolated Mucosa (IM), and Isolated Abutment Teeth (AT). Statistical analyses were conducted to evaluate group differences by quantifying the deviation values between the CIs and COIs. The mean deviations between the COIs and CIs varied significantly across the different comparison situations, with mucosal areas showing higher deviations than dental hard tissue. However, no statistically significant difference was found between the maxilla and mandible. Although COIM offers a no-pressure impression method that captures surfaces without irritation, it was found to capture mucosa less accurately than dental hard tissue. This discrepancy can likely be attributed to software algorithms that automatically filter out mobile tissues. Clinically, these findings suggest that caution is required when using COIM for prosthetics involving mucosal tissues as deviations could compromise the fit and longevity of the prosthetic appliance. Further research is warranted to assess the clinical relevance of these deviations. Full article

Both conventional and digital impressions aim to record the spatial position of implants in the dental arches. However, there is still a lack of data to justify the use of intraoral scanning over conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses. The objective of the in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of conventional and digital impressions obtained with four intra-oral scanners: Trios 4 from 3Shape^®, Primescan from Dentsply Sirona^®, CS3600 from Carestream^® and i500 from Medit^®. This study focused on the impression of an edentulous maxilla in which five implants were placed for implant-supported complete prosthesis. The digital models were superimposed on a digital reference model using dimensional control and metrology software. Angular and distance deviations from the digital reference model were calculated to assess trueness. Dispersion of the values around their mean for each impression was also calculated for precision. The mean distance deviation in absolute value and the direction of the distance deviation were smaller for conventional impressions (p-value < 0.001). The I-500 had the best results regarding angular measurements, followed by Trios 4 and CS3600 (p < 0.001). The conventional and I-500 digital impressions showed the lowest dispersion of values around the mean (p-value < 0.001). Within the limitations of our study, our results revealed that the conventional impression was more accurate than the digital impression, but further clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings. Full article

(1) Background: Stereophotogrammetry has recently been investigated showing high accuracy in complete implant supported cases but has scarcely been investigated in cases of tilted implants. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impression techniques (intraoral scanning and photogrammetry) at the level of intraoral scan bodies in terms of angular deviations and 3D discrepancies. (2) Methods: A stone master cast representing an edentulous maxilla using four implant analogs was fabricated. The two anterior implants were parallel to each other, and the two posterior implants were at an angulation of 17 degrees. Digital intraoral scanning (DIOS) impressions were taken after connecting implant level scan bodies to the master cast and STL files were exported (n = 15). Digital photogrammetry (DPG) impressions were captured using a PiC Camera after tightening implant level PiC optical markers and STL files were exported (n = 15). Superimposition was carried out by a software for determining the accuracy of both. (3) Results: Significant angular discrepancies (ΔA) and 3D deviations of scan bodies were found among the groups in trueness with lower deviations for the DPG (p value < 0.001). However, trueness within ISBs varied between angular and 3D deviations and outcomes were not specific to determine the effect of implant angulation. In precision, no significant differences were detected within ISBs and among both groups in terms of angular deviation. However, DPG had less deviations than DIOS group in terms of 3D deviations (p value < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: Digital photogrammetry technique conveyed the utmost accuracy in both trueness and precision for the intraoral scan bodies among both impression methods assessed. In addition, implant angulation did not influence the precision of the impression techniques but affected their trueness without explicit conclusions. Full article

Impression technique is one of the factors affecting restoration fit accuracy, which is a major aspect influencing its survival. The purpose of this study is to compare, in vivo, the effect of two commonly used Vinyl Polysiloxane (VPS) impression techniques on the metal framework fitting of fixed partial dentures. Ninety-two consecutive patients, diagnosed as partially edentulous, treated by fixed partial denture restorations, participated in the study. Group 1-impressions (n = 44) were subjected to the 1-step technique, while group 2 impressions (n = 48) were subjected the 2-step technique. Three accuracy assessment common methods: probe, tactile sense and radiographic test, were used to validate the clinical fit of the metal framework. Misfit was defined as even one test failure. Twenty-one (22.8%) out of 92 metal frameworks exhibited metal frameworks misfit, whereas the other 71 (77.2%) were found to be accurate. Group 1 presented significantly (p = 0.04) more metal frameworks misfit, 14/44 (31.8%) vs. 7/48 (14.6%). Restoration location (maxilla vs. mandible) had no statistically significant impact on the results (p = 0.461). The use of the VPS putty/wash 2-step impression technique is recommended to improve the clinical fit of fixed partial denture restorations. Full article

Differentiation of true from mimicking Eagle’s syndrome based on conventional radiography is difficult; however, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) images can contribute to proper diagnosis of mimicking Eagle’s syndrome. The aim was to study radiological images of a 37-year old female patient (patient #1), with chronic cervicofacial pain who underwent radiological diagnosis with a conventional panoramic machine; another 75-year old male patient (patient #2), with chronic oropharyngeal pain, underwent a radiological diagnosis with the CBCT machine, with a field of a view of 16 × 12 cm. Exposure factors were 120 kVp, 7 mA, with a 20 s exposure time of acquisition. The results show a panoramic image (patient #1) with a pathologically elongated styloid process 46 mm of length, which was surgically removed, releasing the patient from further pain episodes. CBCT acquisition (patient #2) showed an impacted left maxillary canine in the edentulous maxilla and a peculiar elongation of both stylohyoid complexes as impressive, “collar-like”, bilateral, elongated, multiple segmented, calcified stylohyoid complexes, without pressure on the vital neurovascular neck structures, mimicking true Eagle’s syndrome. The impacted maxillary canine was surgically extracted with a subsequent resolution of pain episodes and the cessation of neurological complaints. The conclusions suggest that the use of CBCT images can contribute to differentiating mimicking from true Eagle’s syndrome, which has been rarely reported in the literature. Full article

Background: This study was aimed at comparing the accuracy of impressions of a reference typodont (RT) reproducing a totally edentulous maxilla made with three impression materials: polysulfide, polyether, and polyvinyl-siloxane. Methods: The RT was scanned using a desktop scanner, obtaining a reference scan. Ten impressions for each of the three tested materials were made using a mechanical device with a standardized and consistent modality. A laboratory scanner performed the digitization of each impression. We produced digital models by processing “in reverse” the scans of the physical impressions using a dedicated software, obtaining three groups (n = 10), respectively. The groups were titled: “polysulfide,” “polyvinyl-siloxane,” and “polyether”. The scans in .stl format were imported into Geomagic Control X and then compared to RT to evaluate the accuracy of each scan by calculating trueness and precision in µm. Recorded data were subjected to descriptive statistics. Results: Trueness (arithmetic proximity) values (95%CI) were: polysulfide = 249.9 (121.3–378.5), polyvinyl-siloxane = 216.8 (123.1–310.6), polyether = 291.1 (219.9–362.3). Precision values (95% CI) were: polysulfide = 261.9 (108.8–415), polyvinyl-siloxane = 209.4 (111.9–306.8), polyether = 283 (227.9–338.1). Statistically significant differences were not detected between the means of the experimental groups, both for trueness and precision. Conclusions: The accuracy of the scans obtained from polyvinyl-siloxane, polysulfide, and polyether impressions can be considered comparable in a fully edentulous maxilla. Full article