Comparison of digital and silicone impressions for single-tooth implants and two- and three-unit implants for a free-end edentulous saddle

• DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01836-1
• Publication Date: 2021-09-23T09:58:09Z
• Authors: Koudai Nagata; Kei Fuchigami; Yurie Okuhama; Kana Wakamori; Hayato Tsuruoka; Toshifumi Nakashizu; Noriyuki Hoshi; Mihoko Atsumi; Katsuhiko Kimoto; Hiromasa Kawana
• Keywords: Dental prosthesis

Abstract Background The use of intraoral scanners (IOS) has facilitated the digital workflows for fabrication implant-supported prostheses not only single missing teeth, but also multiple teeth. However, clinical application IOS and computer-aided design/manufacturing (CAD/CAM) in prosthodontics remains unclear. This study aimed to compare accuracy silicone impressions single-tooth implants bounded edentulous spaces two-unit three-unit fixed dental free-end spaces. Methods enrolled 30 patients (n = 10 each three groups) with an average age 61.9 years. Conventional silicone-based IOS-based were made all patients, implant superstructures fabricated. We measured scan-body misfit compared single-unit, two-unit, a space by superimposing standard triangulated language (STL) data obtained from over STL plaster model used final prosthesis fabrication. scan bodies superimposed single-molar implant, without teeth on mesial side, distal side designated as A, B1, B2, C1, C2, respectively. body was calculated accuracies using Tukey–Kramer method. Results conditions C2 40.5 ± 18.9, 45.4 13.4, 56.5 9.6, 50.7 14.9, 80.3 12.4 μm, Significant differences observed between A C1 (P < 0.001). Conclusions CAD/CAM can find applications up units saddle. could render treatment easier, benefiting both surgeons patients. Prosthesis maladjustment may lead peri-implantitis prosthetic fracture. Therefore, further validation is required long-span prostheses.