Implant prosthesis using intraoral scanner: Case Report

Kang, Byeong-Gil; Kim, Hee-Jung; Chung, Chae-Heon

doi:10.4047/jkap.2015.53.3.256

J Korean Acad Prosthodont. 2015 Jul;53(3):256-261. Korean.
Published online Jul 22, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2015.53.3.256

Case Report

Implant prosthesis using intraoral scanner: Case Report

and Chae-Heon Chung

Copyright and License

- Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
Corresponding Author: Chae-Heon Chung. Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chosun University, 303 Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju 501-825, Republic of Korea. +82 62 220 3820: Email: jhajung@chosun.ac.kr

Received June 11, 2015; Revised July 02, 2015; Accepted July 07, 2015.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Accuracy is the most important thing in implant prosthesis, for this reason it is essential procedure to check the accuracy of impression taking. However, impression material has its own error and the error occurs in model-making procedure. As an alternative way to this, using intraoral scanner can be suggested and many studies were issued reporting that there's no statistically significant difference in accuracy between intraoral scanner and conventional impression. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to report the process of making of implant prosthesis using intraoral scanner, which is more convenient, fast, accurate compared with conventional method.

Keywords

Intraoral scan; CAD/CAM; Implant prosthesis

Figures

Fig. 1
Clinical pictures of case 1. (A) Intraoral radiographic view after implant surgery, (B) Scannable impression coping, (C) Intraoral scan image, (D) Matching the imaginary impression coping to the scan image, (E) Computer aided design of prosthesis, (F) Computer aided design of titanium abutment, (G) Polyurethane model made by 3D printer, (H) Definitive prosthesis.

Click for larger image

Fig. 2
Clinical pictures of case 2. (A) Intraoral view after implant surgery, (B) Scannable impression coping, (C) Intraoral scan image, (D) Matching the imaginary impression coping to the scan image, (E) Computer aided design of prosthesis, (F) Computer aided design of titanium abutment, (G) Polyurethane model made by 3D printer, (H) Definitive prosthesis.

Click for larger image

Notes

This study was supported by research funds from Education and Culture Foundation of College of Dentistry, Chosun University, 2014.

References

1. Del'Acqua MA, Arioli-Filho JN, Compagnoni MA, Mollo Fde A Jr. Accuracy of impression and pouring techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008;23:226–236.
1. Wee AG. Comparison of impression materials for direct multi-implant impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:323–331.
  PubMed
  
  CrossRef
1. Del'Acqua MA, Chávez AM, Compagnoni MA, Molo Fde A Jr. Accuracy of impression techniques for an implant-supported prosthesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:715–721.
1. Cho SH, Schaefer O, Thompson GA, Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent 2015;113:310–315.
  PubMed
  
  CrossRef
1. Güth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1201–1208.
  CrossRef
1. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015 Feb 13;
1. Kim JH, Kim KB, Kim WC, Kim JH, Kim HY. Accuracy and precision of polyurethane dental arch models fabricated using a three-dimensional subtractive rapid prototyping method with an intraoral scanning technique. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:69–76.
  PubMed
  
  CrossRef