İmplant Destekli Protezlerde Konvansiyonel Ve Dijital Ölçü:Sistematik Derleme

Amaç: Alçı modellere implant pozisyonlarını aktarabilmek içinkullanılan direkt (açık kaşık) ve indirekt teknik (kapalı kaşık)olmak üzere 2 temel konvansiyonel ölçü tekniği vardır. Ağız içitarayıcıların gelişmesiyle dijital ölçüler konvansiyonel implantölçülerine alternatif olarak önerilmiştir. Bu derlemenin amacı,implant ölçülerinde konvansiyonel ve dijital yöntemlerindoğruluğunu değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: PubMed ve Google Akademik kullanılarakelektronik ortamda literatür taraması yapılarak 2015 yılı vesonrasında yapılan çalışmalar dikkate alınmıştır. Bulgular: Dahil etme ve hariç tutma kriterleri uygulanarak 12makale çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. 10 makale in vitro ve 2makale klinik çalışmadır. Üç in vitro çalışma ve bir klinikçalışma konvansiyonel implant ölçüsü ile dijital tekniğindoğruluğunu karşılaştırmıştır. Parsiyel dişsiz hastalar için 4çalışmadan ikisi açık kaşık tekniğinin dijital ölçülerden dahadoğru olduğunu, bir çalışma kapalı kaşık tekniğinin dijitalölçülerden daha doğru olduğunu ve bir çalışma isekonvansiyonel tekniğin dijital ölçü ile benzer sonuçlar verdiğinibildirmiştir. Tam dişsiz hastalar için 8 çalışmadan biri açıkkaşık ölçü tekniğinin dijital ölçüyle benzer doğrulukgösterdiğini, iki çalışma splintli açık kaşık ölçü tekniğinin dijitalölçüden daha doğru olduğunu, üç çalışma dijital ölçünün dahadoğru olduğunu ve bir çalışma ise splintli açık kaşık ölçütekniğinin dijital ölçü ile benzer doğrulukta olduğunubildirmiştir. Sonuç: İncelenen toplam 12 makaleden beşi implantölçülerinde dijital tekniğin daha az doğru olduğunu belirtmiştirve yedisi ise dijital ölçü kullanımını teşvik etmektedir.

Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques for ImplantSupported Restorations

Background: There are two basic conventional impressiontechniques used to transfer implant positions to gypsum cast: direct(open tray) and indirect technique (closed tray). With thedevelopment of intraoral scanners, digital impressions have beenproposed as an alternative to conventional implant impressions. Thepurpose of this review is to evaluate the accuracy of conventional anddigital methods for implant impressions. Materials and Methods: Electronic literature search was conductedusing PubMed and Google Scholar and studies conducted in 2015and after have been taken into consideration. Results: By applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 12 articleswere included in the study. 10 articles are in vitro and 2 articles areclinical studies. Three in vitro studies and one clinical study comparedthe accuracy of conventional implant impression and digitaltechnique. For partial edentulous patients, two of the 4 studiesreported that the open tray technique was more accurate than digitalimpressions, one study reported that the closed tray technique wasmore accurate than digital impressions, and one study reported thatthe conventional technique resulted in similar results for the digitalimpression. One of 8 studies for edentulous patients reported that theopen tray impression technique showed similar accuracy for thedigital impression, two studies reported that the splinted open trayimpression technique was more accurate than the digital impression,three studies reported that the digital impression was more accurateand one study reported that the splinted open tray impressiontechnique was similar to the digital impression technique. Conclusion: Five of the 12 articles noted that the digital technique isless accurate in implant impressions, and seven articles encouragethe use of digital impressions.

PDF

___

1. Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1253-62.
2. Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30(1):102-9.
3. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015;26(6):715-9.
4. Aktöre H, Kurtulmuş-Yılmaz S. İmplant destekli protezlerde ölçünün doğruluğunu etkileyen faktörlerin değerlendirilmesi The evaluation of factors that affect the accuracy of implant impressions. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. 2015;18(2):214-27.
5. Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):543-9.
6. Ribeiro P, Herrero-Climent M, Díaz-Castro C, Ríos-Santos JV, Padrós R, Mur JG, et al. Accuracy of Implant Casts Generated with Conventional and Digital Impressions-An In Vitro Study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(8).
7. Marghalani A, Weber HP, Finkelman M, Kudara Y, El Rafie K, Papaspyridakos P. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119(4):574-9.
8. Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional Versus Digital Impressions for "All-on-Four" Restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(2):324-30.
9. Özyer EK, Kahramanoğlu E, Aslan YU, Özkan Y. İmplant Destekli Protetik Restorasyonlarda Kullanılan Ölçü Yöntemleri ve Materyalleri: Derleme. European Journal of Research in Dentistry. 2019;3(2):124-32.
10.Moura RV, Kojima AN, Saraceni CHC, Bassolli L, Balducci I, Özcan M, et al. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques for Implant Restorations. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e530-e5.
11.Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):186-94.
12.Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Implant Impression Approach: A Three-Dimensional Comparative In Vitro Analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32(4):792–9.
13.Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. A Comparison of implant impression precision: Different materials and techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018;10(2):e151-e7.
14.Joseph TM, Ravichandran R, Lylajam S, Viswabharan P, Janardhanan K, Rajeev S. Evaluation of positional accuracy in multiple implants using four different splinting materials: An in vitro study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2018;18(3):239-47.
15.Çağlar İ, Duymuş ZY, Sabit A. Diş Hekimliğinde Kullanılan Ölçü Sistemlerinde Güncel Yaklaşımlar: Dijital Ölçü. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2015;25:135-40.
16.Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(4):e902-e8.
17.Ergün G, Ataol AS. CAD/CAM ile şekillendirilen protetik restorasyonlarda komplikasyonlar. 7tepe Klinik Dergisi.11(1):17-30.
18.Mühlemann S, Greter EA, Park JM, Hämmerle CHF, Thoma DS. Precision of digital implant models compared to conventional implant models for posterior single implant crowns: A within-subject comparison. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(9):931- 6.
19.Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360-7.
20.Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(10):1318-23.
21.Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(4):465-72.
22.Sawase T, Kuroshima S. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(1):57-61.
23.Bohner L, Hanisch M, De Luca Canto G, Mukai E, Sesma N, Neto PT. Accuracy of Casts Fabricated by Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions. J Oral Implantol. 2019;45(2):94-9.
24.Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(6):648-53.
25.Wulfman C, Naveau A, Rignon-Bret C. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(2):161-7.
26.Su TS, Sun J. Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2015;59(4):236- 42.
27.Lee SJ, Kim SW, Lee JJ, Cheong CW. Comparison of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Scanners: Evaluation of Surface Topography and Precision. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8(2).
28.Rech-Ortega C, Fernández-Estevan L, Solá-Ruíz MF,
Agustín-Panadero R, Labaig-Rueda C. Comparative in vitro study of the accuracy of impression techniques for dental implants: Direct technique with an elastomeric impression material versus intraoral scanner. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2019;24(1):e89-e95.
29.Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, Petridis H. Comparison of Accuracy Between a Conventional and Two Digital Intraoral Impression Techniques. Int J Prosthodont. 2018;31(2):107-13.
30.Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type. Int J Dent. 2018;2018:3761750.
31.Revilla-León M, Att W, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2020.
32.Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z, et al. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(4):281-6.
33.Brånemark PI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;50(3):399-410.
34.Kahramanoğlu E, Özkan YK. İmplant destekli protezlerde pasif uyum. Cumhuriyet Dental
Journal. 2012;15(3):255-63. 35.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 photogrammetric technique. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995;6(3):172-80.
36.Carr AB, Gerard DA, Larsen PE. The response of bone in primates around unloaded dental implants supporting prostheses with different levels of fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76(5):500-9.
37.Millington ND, Leung T. Inaccurate fit of implant superstructures. Part 1: Stresses generated on the superstructure relative to the size of fit discrepancy. Int J Prosthodont. 1995;8(6):511-6.
38.Papaspyridakos P, Hirayama H, Chen CJ, Ho CH, Chronopoulos V, Weber HP. Full-arch implant fixed prostheses: a comparative study on the effect of connection type and impression technique on accuracy of fit. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(9):1099-105.
39.Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus Digital Impressions for Full Arch Screw-Retained Maxillary Rehabilitations: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(5).