Impressions in Implantology. Literature Review

Neada Hysenaj^{1, 2,} , Edit Xhajanka¹, Anis Thodhorjani^{1, 2}, Assoc. Silvana Bara¹, Ramazan Isufi¹, Fatmir Lela¹, Tedi Verçani¹, Endrit Paparisto¹ and Edlira Mulo¹

¹Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine, Tirana

²University Dental Clinic, Tirana

Cite this paper:
Neada Hysenaj, Edit Xhajanka, Anis Thodhorjani, Assoc. Silvana Bara, Ramazan Isufi, Fatmir Lela, Tedi Verçani, Endrit Paparisto and Edlira Mulo. Impressions in Implantology. Literature Review. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research. 2023; 11(2):27-32. doi: 10.12691/ijdsr-11-2-3

Abstract

The aim of the impression in implant prosthetic restorations is to register in an accurate way the relation of the analogue or abutment to the oral tissue that surround the implant. Its purpose is to register the position and axis of the implant. A search in PubMed was done, focusing on the full text articles, describing the characteristics of conventional and digital impressions in implantology. The inclusion criteria were articles that described: the open tray technique, closed tray technique, digital impression, impression material, digital accuracy, scan abutment materials, scanning technique and the passive fit. 201 articles were found, 78 articles were selected to conduct this review. There are several factors that influence the success of an impression: the proper components of the implants, the adequate selection of the tray: stock or individual, the selection of the impression material, the choice of the impression technique, of the screw driver: hex, external or internal, the selection of healing caps, impression copings and abutments. The success of the impression depends also on the number of implants, implant angulation, splinting the impression copings, setting expansion of dental stone, polymerization shrinkage of the material. In the multiple implant clinical cases, the splinting or no splinting process seems to be important in the impression accuracy. There are several possible mistakes which can occur during implant impression, such as unseated impression copings, the dimensional change of the material used for the impression, minor movements which might occur by retrieving impression copings and connecting analogues, and the movement of analogues in the cast because of the dimensional changes of plaster. With the high development of the dental industry, digital impression is an important part of implantology. It is important to evaluate the accuracy of the digital impressions, its advantages, disadvantages and its indications. Another important aspect is the comparison of the accuracy between the traditional impression and digital impression.

Keywords:
digital impression conventional impression accuracy

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Goll GE. Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks: Part I-Clinical procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66: 377-84.
[2]	Rangert B, Jemt T, Jörneus L. Forces and moments on Branemark implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1989; 4: 241-7.
[3]	Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014; 29: 836-45.
[4]	Xhajanka E, Hysenaj N, Thodhorjan A, Bara S, Isufi R, Lela F (2023) Abutment Materials. Which Material to choose? Literature Review. Open Access J Dent Oral Surg 5: 1070
[5]	Anis Thodhorjani, Ramazan Isufi, Edit Xhajanka*, Neada Hysenaj, Silvana Bara, Fatmir Lela and Renato Isufi. Important Criteria for The Success of Dental Implants - Literature Review. Mod App Dent Oral Health 6(1)- 2023. MADOHC.MS.ID.000227. DOI: 10.32474/MADOHC.2023.06.000227
[6]	Örtorp A, Jemt T. CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: a 10-year comparative clinical study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Mar; 14(1): 88-99.
[7]	Lee SJ, Cho SB. Accuracy of five implant impression technique: effect of splinting materials and methods. J Adv Prosthodont 2011; 3: 177-85.
[8]	Mangano A, Beretta M, Luongo G, Mangano C, Mangano F. Conventional vs digital impressions: acceptability, treatment comfort and stress among young orthodontic patients. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 118-24.
[9]	Johansson G, Palmqvist S. Complications, supplementary treatment, and maintenance in edentulous arches with implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 1990; 3: 89-92.
[10]	Gallardo YR, Bohner L, Tortamano P, Pigozzo MN, Laganá DC, Sesma N. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018; 119: 214-9.
[11]	Joda T, Lenherr P, Dedem P, Kovaltschuk I, Bragger U, Zitzmann NU. Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator’s preference comparing digital and convention-al implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28: 1318-23.
[12]	Park HR, Park JM, Chun YS, Lee KN, Kim M. Changes in views on digital intraoral scanners among dental hygienists after training in digital impression taking. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15: 151.
[13]	Hariharan R, Shankar C, Rajan M, Baig MR, Azhagarasan NS. Evaluation of accuracy of multiple dental implant impressions using various splinting materials. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010 Jan-Feb; 25(1): 38-44. PMID: 20209185.
[14]	Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Mar; 83(3): 323-31.
[15]	Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C. The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Oct; 100(4): 285-91.
[16]	Perakis N, Belser UC, Magne P. Final impressions: a review of material properties and description of a current technique. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004 Apr; 24(2): 109-17. PMID: 15119881.
[17]	Wassell RW, St George G, Ingledew RP, Steele JG. Crowns and other extra-coronal restorations: provisional restorations. Br Dent J. 2002 Jun 15; 192(11): 619-22, 625-30.
[18]	Tabesh M, Alikhasi M, Siadat H. A Comparison of implant impression precision: Different materials and techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2018 Feb 1; 10(2): e151-e157.
[19]	Burns J, Palmer R, Howe L, Wilson R. Accuracy of open tray implant impressions: an in vitro comparison of stock versus custom trays. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Mar; 89(3): 250-5.
[20]	Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Mar; 111(3): 186-94.
[21]	Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont. 2020.
[22]	Mizumoto, Ryan. The accuracy of different digital impression techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported reconstructions. 2018. Ohio State University.
[23]	Papaspyridakos, P.; Gallucci, G.O.; Chen, C.-J.; Hanssen, S.; Naert, I.; Vandenberghe, B. Digital versus Conventional Implant Impressions for Edentulous Patients: Accuracy Outcomes. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2016, 27, 465–472.
[24]	Amin, S.; Weber, H.P.; Finkelman, M.; El Rafie, K.; Kudara, Y.; Papaspyridakos, P. Digital vs. Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Comparative Study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017, 28, 1360–1367.
[25]	Yilmaz, B.; Gouveia, D.; Marques, V.R.; Diker, E.; Schimmel, M.; Abou-Ayash, S. The Accuracy of Single Implant Scans with a Healing Abutment-Scanpeg System Compared with the Scans of a Scanbody and Conventional Impressions: An in Vitro Study. J. Dent. 2021, 110, 103684. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
[26]	Pjetursson BE, Thoma D, Jung R, Zwahlen M, Zembic A. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs) after a mean observation period of at least 5 years. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 Oct; 23 Suppl 6: 22-38.
[27]	Syrek A, Reich G, Ranftl D, Klein C, Cerny B, Brodesser J. Clinical evaluation of all-ceramic crowns fabricated from intraoral digital impressions based on the principle of active wavefront sampling. J Dent 2010; 38: 553-9.
[28]	Flügge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 471-8.
[29]	Grünheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 146: 673-82.
[30]	Mino T, Maekawa K, Ueda A, Higuchi S, Sejima J, Takeuchi T, Hara ES, Kimura-Ono A, Sonoyama W, Kuboki T. In silico comparison of the reproducibility of full-arch implant provisional restorations to final restoration between a 3D Scan/CAD/CAM technique and the conventional method. J Prosthodont Res 2015; 59: 152-8.
[31]	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: e0158800.
[32]	Howell KJ, McGlumphy EA, Drago C, Knapik G. Comparison of the accuracy of Biomet 3i Encode Robocast Technology and conventional implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Jan-Feb; 28(1): 228-40.
[33]	Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z, Ercoli C. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. J Prosthodont. 2020 Apr; 29(4): 281-286.
[34]	Chochlidakis KM, Papaspyridakos P, Geminiani A, Chen CJ, Feng IJ, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2016; 116: 184-90.
[35]	Kim S.-P., Simeral J. D., Hochberg L. R., Donoghue J. P., Friehs G. M., Black M. J. (2011). Point-and-click cursor control with an intracortical neural interface system by humans with tetraplegia. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. Publ. 19 193–203. 10.1109/TNSRE.2011.2107750 [] [] [] [].
[36]	Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2010 May; 12 Suppl 1: e63-76.
[37]	Vigolo P, Givani A, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. Cemented versus screw-retained implant-supported single-tooth crowns: a 4-year prospective clinical study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004 Mar-Apr; 19(2): 260-5. PMID: 15101598.
[38]	Akalin ZF, Ozkan YK, Ekerim A. Effects of implant angulation, impression material, and variation in arch curvature width on implant transfer model accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013 Jan-Feb; 28(1): 149-57.
[39]	Eliasson A, Ortorp A. The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 May; 14 Suppl 1: e30-8.
[40]	Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy: A Systematic Review. Implant Dent. 2017 Dec; 26(6): 929-935.
[41]	Garg AK. Cadent iTero's digital system for dental impressions: the end of trays and putty? Dent Implantol Update. 2008 Jan; 19(1): 1-4. PMID: 18399300.
[42]	Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wöstmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Sep; 17(7): 1759-64.
[43]	Schmidt A, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022 Jun; 33(6): 573-585.
[44]	Albanchez-González MI, Brinkmann JC, Peláez-Rico J, López-Suárez C, Rodríguez-Alonso V, Suárez-García MJ. Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Feb 11; 19(4): 2026.