2024
Comparison of the reverse scan technique with an intraoral scanner and the traditional impression technique
HYŠPLER, Pavel, Petra URBANOVÁ and Taťjana DOSTÁLOVÁBasic information
Original name
Comparison of the reverse scan technique with an intraoral scanner and the traditional impression technique
Authors
HYŠPLER, Pavel, Petra URBANOVÁ and Taťjana DOSTÁLOVÁ
Edition
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Elsevier Inc. 2024, 0022-3913
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Article in a journal
Country of publisher
United States of America
Confidentiality degree
is not subject to a state or trade secret
References:
Impact factor
Impact factor: 4.300 in 2023
Organization unit
Faculty of Science
Tags
International impact, Reviewed
Changed: 17/3/2025 11:05, Mgr. Marie Novosadová Šípková, DiS.
Abstract
V originále
Statement of problem Intraoral scanners have many advantages but have limited applicability for extensive tooth-supported or implant-supported prostheses because of merging errors. Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the reverse scan technique (RST) with an intraoral scanner using the traditional impression technique both in vitro and in vivo. Material and methods A participant was scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner. Then, the RST was performed 3 times in the oral cavity. One of the intraoral scans was chosen to make a 3-dimensionally (3D) printed cast. The printed cast was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner (Control cast) and 10 times with an intraoral scanner (IOS cast). The RST was performed 10 times (RST cast), and 10 dental impressions were made using the traditional splinted technique on the same cast (Impression cast). A laboratory scanner was used to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) files of the tested methods. A newly developed pyramid replacement method was used to evaluate accuracy. This method uses modified virtual abutments with integrated pyramids that determine the exact measurement points. The obtained data were processed using Procrustes analysis and statistically analyzed (α=.05). Results The Procrustes distances were Control cast 0 to 0.4 µm (median 0.3 µm), RST cast 5.6 to 6.9 µm (median 6.2 µm), Impression cast 5.4 to 7.1 µm (median 6.5 µm), and IOS cast group 4.5 to 41.2 µm (median 5.8 µm). In the participant, the Procrustes distance values were RST intraoral 9.5 to 9.6 µm (median 9.5 µm) and IOS intraoral 5.7 to 18.3 µm (median 10.9 µm). Conclusions The reverse scan technique is an acceptable fully digital replacement for traditional impression making. Using an IOS to obtain a 3D cast of an implant-supported interim prosthesis with scannable implant analogs is not recommended. It is more beneficial to use laboratory scanners rather than intraoral scanners for the digitization of precision improvement devices such as bonded interim implant-supported prostheses with a scannable implant analog or solid index.
Links
| MUNI/A/1597/2023, interní kód MU |
|