Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 13, 2025
Measuring the Complete-arch Distortion of an Optical Dental Impression
Published on: May 30, 2019
Comparison of Milled Full-Arch Implant-Supported Frameworks Realised with a Full Digital Workflow or from
Francesco Pera1, Paolo Pesce2, Francesco Bagnasco2
1C.I.R. Dental School, Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Turin, 10126 Turin, Italy.
Background:
The aim of the present study was to investigate the accuracy of a new digital impression system, comparing it to the plaster impression technique in the realization of full-arch implant-supported metal frameworks.
Methods:
We took 11 scans (8 of the upper maxilla and 3 of the lower jaw) on a sample of nine patients previously rehabilitated with fixed full-arch screw-retained prostheses following the Columbus Bridge Protocol (CBP) with four to six implants (total: 51) since at least 4 months. Two impressions were taken for each dental arch: one analogic plaster impression using pick-up copings and an open tray technique and a second one using an intra-oral scanner. Two milled metal substructures were realised. The precision and passivity of the substructures were clinically analysed through the Sheffield test and endo-oral radiographs. Laboratory scans of the plaster casts obtained from an intra-oral scanner (IOS) and of the plaster casts obtained from traditional impression were compared with the intraoral scans following Hausdorff's method and an industrial digital method of optical detection to measure discrepancies. A Mann-Whitney test was performed in order to investigate average distances between surfaces after the superposition.
Results:
The Sheffield test demonstrated an excellent passivity of the frameworks obtained through both the digital and the analogic method. In 81.81% of cases (n = 9) both substructures were found to have a perfect fit with excellent passivity, while in 18.18% (n = 2) of cases the substructures were found to have a very slight discrepancy. From the radiographic examination, no gaps between the frameworks and the implant heads or multiunit abutments were observed, with 100% accuracy. By superimposing digital files of scans according to Hausdorff's method, a statistically significant discrepancy (p = 0.006) was found between the digital scans and the digital models obtained from plaster impressions. Three-dimensional optical detection found a mean discrepancy of 0.11 mm between the analogic cast and the cast derived from the digital impression.
Conclusions:
The present study clinically demonstrates that milled implant-supported full-arch frameworks obtained through a digital scan and the herein described technique have an accuracy comparable to those obtained with traditional plaster impression.
