LinkedIn

 آمار

تعداد نشریات20
تعداد شماره‌ها1,149
تعداد مقالات10,518
تعداد مشاهده مقاله45,416,103
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله11,291,801
Hashemi, Ali Mahmoud, Hasanzadeh, Mahya, Payaminia, Leila, Alikhasi, Marzieh. (1402). Effect of Repeated Use of Different Types of Scan Bodies on Transfer Accuracy of Implant Position. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 24(4), 410-416. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2022.96149.1922
Ali Mahmoud Hashemi; Mahya Hasanzadeh; Leila Payaminia; Marzieh Alikhasi. "Effect of Repeated Use of Different Types of Scan Bodies on Transfer Accuracy of Implant Position". سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 24, 4, 1402, 410-416. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2022.96149.1922
Hashemi, Ali Mahmoud, Hasanzadeh, Mahya, Payaminia, Leila, Alikhasi, Marzieh. (1402). 'Effect of Repeated Use of Different Types of Scan Bodies on Transfer Accuracy of Implant Position', سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 24(4), pp. 410-416. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2022.96149.1922
Hashemi, Ali Mahmoud, Hasanzadeh, Mahya, Payaminia, Leila, Alikhasi, Marzieh. Effect of Repeated Use of Different Types of Scan Bodies on Transfer Accuracy of Implant Position. سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی, 1402; 24(4): 410-416. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2022.96149.1922

Effect of Repeated Use of Different Types of Scan Bodies on Transfer Accuracy of Implant Position

Journal of Dentistry
مقاله 15، دوره 24، شماره 4 - شماره پیاپی 81، اسفند 2023، صفحه 410-416    اصل مقاله (658.03 K)
نوع مقاله: Original Article
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30476/dentjods.2022.96149.1922
نویسندگان
Ali Mahmoud Hashemi* 1؛ Mahya Hasanzadeh2؛ Leila Payaminia2؛ Marzieh Alikhasi3
1PhD Student, Dental Implant Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2Dental Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Dept. of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
3Dental Research Center, Dental Implant Research Center, Dentistry Research Institute, Dept. of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده
Statement of the Problem: Some components of implant treatment are reusable. Therefore, possible changes during fixation, removal, and sterilization process should be tested. Many studies have examined the reuse of implant parts, but the impact of repeated use of scan bodies on the accuracy of implant position has not been well investigated.
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of repeated use of two different types of scan bodies on the accuracy of implant position.
Materials and Method: In this in vitro experimental study, two acrylic resin maxillary models, each with two implant analogues inserted at the site of missing first and second molars were used. Two types of scan bodies including titanium and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) were used for digital impression. Then they were ten times removed and autoclaved for sterilization. The first scan was considered as a reference to be compared with the other next nine scans. Values of linear distance between two scan bodies, diameter changes of each scan body, and three-dimensional linear displacement (ΔR) were measured. These values were compared between the two types of scan bodies using t-test (α=.05). 
Results: There was significant difference between titanium and PEEK scan bodies regarding inter-implant distance variation (p=.006) and diameter change (p< .001) in repeated use. However, for the ΔR, there was no significant difference between them (p= 0.759).
Conclusion: The results demonstrated that type of scan body could affect the accuracy of implant position transfer after repeated use. PEEK scan body performed better after 9 cycles of reuse in comparison with titanium scan body.

تازه های تحقیق

Ali Mahmoud Hashemi (Google Scholar)

کلیدواژه‌ها
Computer aided design؛ Computer aided manufacturing؛ Dental Prosthesis؛ Implant supported؛ Impression technique
سایر فایل های مرتبط با مقاله
مراجع
  • Ting-Shu S, Jian S. Intraoral Digital Impression Technique: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2015; 24: 313-321.
  • Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004; 15: 466-473.
  • Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995; 6: 172-180.
  • Vigolo P, Majzoub Z, Cordioli G. In vitro comparison of master cast accuracy for single-tooth implant replacement. J Prosthet Dent. 2000; 83: 562-566.
  • Brandt J, Lauer HC, Peter T, Brandt S. Digital process for an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114: 469-473.
  • Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc. 2008; 139: 761-763.
  • Schoenbaum TR. Dentistry in the digital age: an update. Dent Today. 2012; 31: 108-113.
  • Vercruyssen M, Laleman I, Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Computer-supported implant planning and guided surgery: a narrative review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26 Suppl 11: 69-76.
  • Arcuri L, Lio F, Campana V, Mazzetti V, Federici F, Nardi A, et al. Influence of implant scanbody wear on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro Materials (Basels). 2022; 15: 927.
  • Schmidt A, Billig J, Schlenz M, Wostmann B. The influence of using different types of scan bodies on the transfer accuracy of implant position: an in vitro Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34: 254-260.
  • Jahn D. Scan body for determination of positioning and orientation of a dental implant. Google Patents; 2014.
  • Yilmaz H, Arinc H, Cakmak G, Atalay S, Donmez M, Kokat A, et al. Effect of scan pattern on the scan accuracy of a combined healing abutment scan body system. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; S0022-3913(22)00067-1.
  • Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 343-352.
  • Leon M, Smith Z, Methani M, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M. Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 918-923.
  • Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16: 851-856.
  • Bourguignon C, Destrumelle AS, Koch S, Grumblat A, Carayon P, Chopard C, et al. Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps in GI endoscopy: a cost-minimization analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58: 226-229.
  • Schwartz Z, Lohmann CH, Blau G, Blanchard CR, Soskolne AW, Liu Y, et al. Reuse of implant coverscrews changes their surface properties but not clinical outcome. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11: 183-194.
  • Karch M, Alt E, Schmitt C, Schomig A. Reimplantation of an infected, abdominally implanted defibrillator in the subpectoral region. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1996; 37: 67-70.
  • Coley-Smith A, Rock WP. Distortion of metallic orthodontic brackets after clinical use and debond by two methods. Br J Orthod. 1999; 26: 135-139.
  • Pernier C, Grosgogeat B, Ponsonnet L, Benay G, Lissac M. Influence of autoclave sterilization on the surface parameters and mechanical properties of six orthodontic wires. Eur J Orthod. 2005; 27: 72-81.
  • Vieira EP, Franca EC, Martins RC, Buono VT, Bahia MG. Influence of multiple clinical use on fatigue resistance of ProTaper rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J. 2008; 41: 163-172.
  • Gorokhovsky V, Heckerman B, Watson P, Bekesch N. The effect of multilayer filtered arc coatings on mechanical properties, corrosion resistance and performance of periodontal dental instruments. Surface Coatings Technology. 2006; 200: 5614-5630.
  • Boeckler AF, Morton D, Ehring C, Setz JM. Influence of sterilization on the retention properties of magnetic attachments for dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20: 1206-1211.
  • Ericsson I, Lekholm U, Sennerby L, Holmen A. Soft tissue response to clinically contaminated and thereafter cleaned titanium surfaces: an experimental study in the rat. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2000; 11: 370-373.
  • Martin JY, Dean DD, Cochran DL, Simpson J, Boyan BD, Schwartz Z. Proliferation, differentiation, and protein synthesis of human osteoblast-like cells (MG63) cultured on previously used titanium surfaces. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7: 27-37.
  • Wismeijer D, Mans R, van Genuchten M, Reijers HA. Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014; 25: 1113-1118.
  • Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14: 10.
  • Alikhasi M, Bassir SH, Naini RB. Effect of multiple use of impression copings on the accuracy of implant transfer. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 408-414.
  • Sawyers J, Baig MR, El-Masoud B. Effect of multiple use of impression copings and scanbodies on implant cast accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 891-898.
  • Dellinges M, Curtis D. Effects of infection control procedures on the accuracy of a new mechanical torque wrench system for implant restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1996; 75: 93-98.
  • Browne V, Flewelling M, Wierenga M, Wilson A, Aprecio R, Richardson P, et al. Sterilization analysis of contaminated healing abutments and impression copings. J Calif Dent Assoc. 2012; 40: 419-421.
  • Babu R, Menon N. Reusability of implant impression copings-an in vitro study to evaluate the accuracy of implant transfer. Int J Therap Appl. 2016; 33: 100-104.
  • Gallardo FF, Salmon CA, Lien W, Sheridan RR, Batzer RC, Vandewalle KS. An investigation of the effect of modifying and reusing impression copings on transfer of implant analog position and angulation. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2020; 21: 220-226.
  • Bidra AS, Kejriwal S, Bhuse K. Should healing abutments and cover screws for dental implants be reused? a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 42-48.
  • Noda M, Camilliere JJ. In vivo stimulation of bone formation by transforming growth factor-beta. Endocrinology 1989; 124: 2991-2994.
  • Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y. Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: a laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 93-101.
  • Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, Zechner W, Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: a randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2020; 64: 128-136.
  • Kumar A, Yap WT, Foo SL, Lee TK. Effects of sterilization cycles on PEEK for medical device application. Bioengineering (Basel). 2018; 5: 18.
  • Arcuri L, Lorenzi C, Vanni A, Bianchi N, Dolci A, Arcuri C. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques on implants: a review. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2020; 34: 89-97.
  • Ahlholm P, Sipilä K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35–41.
  • Canullo L, Colombo M, Menini M, Sorge P, Pesce P. Trueness of intraoral scanners considering operator experience and three different implant scenarios: a preliminary report. Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34: 250-253.
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 3,157
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 771


سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب