Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Impression Techniques in Construction of Digitally Printed Surgical Guide "In Vitro Study" | ||||
| Alexandria Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 3, Volume 47, Issue 3, December 2022, Page 100-105 PDF (364.04 K) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjalexu.2021.66492.1165 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Dina Ebid  1; Nermeen Abdelsalam Rady2; Ahmed Adel AbdelHakim3
| ||||
| 1Prosthodontic department, Faculty of Dentistry Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt | ||||
| 2Lecturer of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University | ||||
| 3Dean of Faculty of Dentistry. Professor, Department of Removable Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Egypt. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Introduction: Currently, the basis of implant planning is medical imaging. One of the most important outcomes of computer-assisted surgery is the capacity to accurately insert implants in insufficient tissue. Drilling guides range from first-drill simple guidance to full-navigated surgical guides that lead every drill in all directions. An imperative and decisive step for the effectiveness of implants is the impression record. To date, the quality of optical impressions has been found by scientific literature to be scientifically satisfactory and comparable to that of conventional impressions. Objectives: To assess the accuracy of computer-aided 3D planning and implant placement and the accuracy of polyvinyl siloxane impression material via a digitally printed surgical guide using CBCT. Materials and methods: Sixteen polyurethane models were initially scanned using CBCT. The scanned models were divided into 2 equal groups; Group I (study group, n=8): optical impression was used to scan the models and Group II (control group, n=8): conventional impression was used to duplicate the models. Surgical guide for both groups was 3D printed in acrylic resin according to planning software instructions, followed by placement of eight implants per each group. The pre- and post-operative CBCTs were then matched, and the difference between pre- and post-operative implant locations was calculated using the preparation software matching feature. Results: intraoral CEREC Primescan is more than the conventional impression process. Conclusion: Intraoral scanner is more accurate than the conventional impression in constructing the surgical guide as well as in the implant positioning in relation to the pre-planned implant. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| CAD/CAM; Digital Impression; Intraoral scanner; Implants; Surgical Guide | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 169 PDF Download: 603 |
||||
