The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of the Adaptation of Complete Dentures Fabricated Using Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Techniques

Ghassan Masri, Rola Mortada, Kinda Hatoum, Nawal Al Harbi, Paul Boulos

Citation Information : Masri G, Mortada R, Hatoum K, Al Harbi N, Boulos P. Evaluation of the Adaptation of Complete Dentures Fabricated Using Intraoral Scanning and Conventional Techniques. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (12):1384-1388.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2977

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and objective: This study aimed to digitally analyze the 3-dimensional variations existing between conventional impressions and intraoral scans made in edentulous maxillae. Materials and methods: Ten (n = 10) edentulous maxillae of patients seeking a maxillary complete denture were scanned using an intraoral scanner. The same participants were subject to the conventional impression procedure for the fabrication of maxillary complete dentures. The dentures’ intaglio surfaces were scanned and superimposed over their corresponding IOS files with a 2-base best-fit alignment. Deviation analyses were calculated using the digital subtraction technique. Four anatomical regions were preselected to evaluate the deviations at these sites (posterior palatal seal, anterior border seal, the crest of the ridge and palate). Results: Based on the results and color maps of all selected regions, the overall difference between the two scans [IOS and denture intaglio surface scanning (DISS)] was not significant. The IOS technique allowed for predictable outcomes of treatment compared to those observed with conventional impression. The palatal area seems to be the region with the least deviation, while the highest incidence of discrepancy was reported in the anterior border seal. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the IOS technique allowed the capturing of intraoral tissues and their immediate interpretation and transfer to a designing software making the impression procedure faster and easier. Clinical significance: The computer-aided design (CAD)/computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) technologies can help overcome many limitations related to conventional impressions and therefore should be well investigated to improve the edentulous patient's quality of life.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Patzelt SB, Lamprinos C, Stampf S, et al. The time efficiency of intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparative study. J Am Dent Assoc 2014;145(6):542–551. DOI: 10.14219/jada.2014.23.
  2. Fang Y, Fang JH, Jeong SM, et al. A technique for digital impression and bite registration for a single edentulous arch. J Prosthodont 2019;28(2):e519–e523. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12786.
  3. Christensen GJ. The challenge to conventional impressions. JADA 2008;139(3):347–349. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0165.
  4. Patzelt SB, Vonau S, Stampf S, et al. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J Am Dent Assoc 2013;144(8):914–920. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209.
  5. Rhee K, Huh YH, Cho LR, et al. Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition. J Adv Prosthodont 2015;7(6):460–467. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2015.7.6.460.
  6. Sason GK, Mistry G, Tabassum R, et al. A comparative evaluation of intraoral and extraoral digital impressions: an in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18(2):108–116. DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_224_17.
  7. Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, et al. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont 2018;27(1):35–41. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12527.
  8. Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, et al. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62(3):347–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.01.003.
  9. Lo Russo L, Caradonna G, Troiano G, et al. Three-dimensional differences between intraoral scans and conventional impressions of edentulous jaws: a clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(2):264–268. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.004.
  10. Wang C, Shi YF, Xie PJ, et al. Accuracy of digital complete dentures: a systematic review of in vitro studies. J Prosthet Dent 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.004S0022-3913(20)30047-0.
  11. Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Etxaniz O, et al. Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(3):447–454. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.09.017.
  12. Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Nash J, et al. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression - systems and a laboratory scanner. J Esthet Restor Dent 2019;31(4):369–377. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12485.
  13. Ferrini F, Sannino G, Chiola C, et al. Influence of intra-oral scanner (I.O.S.) on the marginal accuracy of CAD/CAM single crowns. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16(4):544. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16040544.
  14. Kattadiyil MT, Mursic Z, AlRumaih H, et al. Intraoral scanning of hard and soft tissues for partial removable dental prosthesis fabrication. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112(3):444–448. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.03.022.
  15. Bohner L, Gamba DD, Hanisch M, et al. Accuracy of digital technologies for the scanning of facial, skeletal, and intraoral tissues: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(2):246–251. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.015.
  16. Müller P, Ender A, Joda T, et al. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016;47:343–349.
  17. Sim JY, Jang Y, Kim WC, et al. Comparing the accuracy (trueness and precision) of models of fixed dental prostheses fabricated by digital and conventional workflows. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63(1):25–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2018.02.002.
  18. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: an in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118(1):36–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024.
  19. Gan N, Xiong Y, Jiao T. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for whole upper jaws, including full dentitions and palatal soft tissues. PLoS ONE 2016;11(7):e0158800. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158800.
  20. Picton DC, Wills DJ. Viscoelastic properties of the periodontal ligament and mucous membrane. J Prosthet Dent 1978;40(3):263–272. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(78)90031-8.
  21. Chebib N, Kalberer N, Srinivasan M, et al. Edentulous jaw impression techniques: an in vivo comparison of trueness. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121(4):623–630. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.08.016.
  22. Unkovskiy A, Wahl E, Zender AT, et al. Intraoral scanning to fabricate complete dentures with functional borders: a proof-of-concept case report. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):46. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0733-5.
  23. Jacobson TE, Krol AJ. A contemporary review of the factors involved in complete denture retention, stability, and support. Part I: Retention J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:5–15.
  24. Caldwell RC. Adhesion of foods to teeth. J Dent Res 1962;41(4):821–832. DOI: 10.1177/00220345620410041401.
  25. Hickey JC, Zarb GA, Bolender CL. Boucher's Prosthodontic Treatment for Edentulous Patients. 12th ed., St. Louis: Mosby; 2004. pp. 437–442.
  26. Tsuruoka M, Ishizaki K, Sakurai K, et al. Morphological and molecular changes in denture-supporting tissues under persistent mechanical stress in rats. J Oral Rehabil 2008;35(12):889–897. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2008.01883.x.
  27. Kaiba Y, Hirano S, Hayakawa I. Palatal coverage disturbance in masticatory function. J Med Dent Sci 2006;53:1–6.
  28. Maricich SM, Wellnitz SA, Nelson AM, et al. Merkel cells are essential for light-touch responses. Science 2009;324(5934):1580–1582. DOI: 10.1126/science.1172890.
  29. Atwood DA. Reduction of residual ridges: a major oral disease entity. J Prosthet Dent 1971;26(3):266–279. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(71) 90069-2.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.