Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPapaspyridakos, Panagiotis
dc.contributor.authorChronopoulos, Vasileios
dc.contributor.authorHanssen, S.
dc.contributor.authorVandenberghe, B.
dc.contributor.editorP. Papaspyridakos
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:54:13Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:54:13Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/clr.12458_542
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/68032
dc.description.abstractBackground: The accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions has not been investigated yet and clinically relevant data are nonexistent. Aim/Hypothesis: Purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions for completely edentulous patients and to determine the effect of different variables on the accuracy outcomes. Null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between full-arch digital and conventional impressions. Material and methods: A stone cast of an edentulous mandible with five implants was fabricated to serve as master cast (control). The master cast was scanned and digitized with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS; three shape). Ten digital impressions were taken with the same intraoral scanner after connecting plastic scanbodies and digital models were created (n = 10). Four different conventional impression techniques were used to fabricate four groups of casts (n = 10). The implant casts of these four groups were also digitized with the same intraoral scanner into digital models. The scanning datasets from the five groups of digital and conventional impressions were superimposed with the one from the master cast to assess the 3-D (global) deviations. The 'best fit' algorithm was used with computer software to superimpose the scanning datasets and assess the accuracy of each impression technique. Results: Paired t-test was used to compare the 3-D discrepancies between the five test groups and the master cast, respectively. Significant difference was found at the 3-D accuracy between group II (non-splinted implant level) and control (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the other test groups I, II, IV and V and the control (P > 0.05). Conclusion and clinical implications: The full-arch digital implant impressions were as accurate as conventional implant impressions and the null hypothesis was corroborated. The splinted implant-level impressions were more accurate than non-splinted implant-level for completely edentulous patients and as accurate as the digital ones.
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.publisherClinical Oral Implant Research, John Wiley and sons Inc
dc.publisher.placeHanover, United States
dc.publisher.urihttps://eao.org/
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofconferencenameEuropean Association for Osseointegration
dc.relation.ispartofconferencetitleEuropean Association for Osseointegration
dc.relation.ispartofdatefrom2014-09-25
dc.relation.ispartofdateto2014-09-27
dc.relation.ispartoflocationRome, Italy
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchDentistry not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchBiomedical Engineering
dc.subject.fieldofresearchDentistry
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode110599
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode0903
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1105
dc.titleFull arch digital vs. conventional implant impressions: accuracy outcomes.
dc.typeConference output
dc.type.descriptionE3 - Conferences (Extract Paper)
dc.type.codeE - Conference Publications
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorChronopoulos, Vasileios


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Conference outputs
    Contains papers delivered by Griffith authors at national and international conferences.

Show simple item record