Conventional Impressions Versus Digital Impression Techniques for Implant Supported Screw Retained Prosthesis

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Implant Impression Techniques in Bilateral Distal Extension Cases

The purpose was to evaluate the accuracy of traditional and digital implant level impression procedures by using three-dimensional superimposition analysis , and evaluate the passive fit of screw- retained implant supported restorations fabricated using conventional and digital impression techniques in bilateral distal extension cases (class I kennedy classification)

Eight patients who had missing all mandibular posterior teeth except first premolars were included in this study. In each patient, 4 implants were placed, 2 in each side to support 3 units screw retained zirconia restorations. Three months after implant placement, each patient underwent two implant level impression techniques (n=8) for each technique: Conventional implant impressions CII (pick-up, splinted transfers), and digital implant impressions DII were captured with TRIOS 3 Shape intraoral optical scanner. In this study, digital impression was considered as a reference data.

Inclusion Criteria:

• All participants have sufficient bone length and width for implant insertion.
• General health of the patients was evaluated by taking a full medical history to ensure that these patients were free from any systemic conditions that would have impaired implant osseointegration
• Good oral hygiene
• Sufficient inter-arch spaces
• The opposing arch was almost dentulous, and any missing teeth were restored using a fixed partial denture.

Exclusion Criteria:

• parafunctional habits
• Heavy smoking
• Those patients with systemic diseases that may influence soft or hard tissue healing.
• Patients with a history of radiation therapy in the head and neck region.
• Patients with a history of radiation therapy in the head and neck region.