Actual problems in dentistry Actual problems in dentistry Проблемы стоматологии 2077-7566 2412-9461 105249 10.18481/2077-7566-2025-21-3-189-194 ОРТОПЕДИЧЕСКАЯ И ЦИФРОВАЯ СТОМАТОЛОГИЯ ORTHOPEDIC AND DIGITAL DENTISTRY ОРТОПЕДИЧЕСКАЯ И ЦИФРОВАЯ СТОМАТОЛОГИЯ COMPARISON OF THE ACCURACY BETWEEN DIGITAL AND TRADITIONAL IMPRESSIONS FOR FABRICATION OF IMPLANT-SUPPORTED CROWN СРАВНЕНИЕ ПРЕЦИЗИОННОСТИ ЦИФРОВЫХ И ТРАДИЦИОННЫХ ОТТИСКОВ ПРИ ИЗГОТОВЛЕНИИ ОДИНОЧНОЙ КОРОНКИ С ОПОРОЙ НА ИМПЛАНТ Мурашов Михаил Александрович Murashov Mikhail A. mmurashov@yahoo.com

кандидат медицинских наук;

candidate of medical sciences;

 Ваганова Яна Александровна Vaganova Yana A. yavaganovaa@yandex.ru Журина Арина Андреевна Zhurina Arina A. arina.zhurina@inbox.ru

кандидат медицинских наук;

candidate of medical sciences;

 Платонова Мария Сергеевна Platonova Maria S. mashunya_s88@mail.ru Степанова Светлана Юрьевна Stepanova Svetlana Yu. sveta-for4ik@mail.ru Российский университет медицины Москва Россия Russian University of Medicine Moscow Russian Federation Российский университет медицины Москва Россия Russian University of Medicine Moscow Russian Federation Российский университет медицины Москва Россия Russian University of Medicine Moscow Russian Federation Российский университет медицины Москва Россия Russian University of Medicine Moscow Russian Federation Российский университет медицины Москва Россия Russian University of Medicine Moscow Russian Federation 29 10 2025 29 10 2025 21 3 189 194 09 10 2025 https://dental-press.ru/en/nauka/article/105249/view

Актуальность. В настоящее время в ортопедической стоматологии большое внимание уделяется цифровым протоколам. Традиционная методика изготовления ортопедических конструкций с использованием силиконовых оттискных масс, подразумевает получение рабочей модели – максимально приближенной копии положения имплантатов в трехмерном пространстве челюстных костей. Точность модели оказывает влияние на результаты протезирования. При протезировании с использованием имплантатов врачи-стоматологи-ортопеды применяют задокументированные протоколы использования открытой или закрытой ложки. Во многих научных исследованиях сравнивается точность традиционных оттисков с цифровыми оттисками. Однако сравнения получения традиционных оттисков с помощью открытой, закрытой ложки и цифровых оттисков нами найдено не было. Таким образом, проведение данного сравнительного исследования является актуальной задачей. Цель исследования. Сравнить методы и дать рекомендации по получению оттиска с уровня имплантата для изготовления одиночной коронки с опорой на имплантат для снижения погрешности при ортопедическом лечении. Материал и методы. В качестве эталонной модели использована 3D-модель, напечатанная по STL-файлу, полученному от пациента с помощью интраорального сканирования. Традиционные оттиски были изготовлены с помощью поливинилсилоксанового материала, а цифровые – с использованием внутриротового сканера 3Shape TRIOS. Результаты исследования. Наименьшее отклонение от эталона в ЦОЗ и АОЗ наблюдалось при получении цифрового оттиска (17,5 ± 0,7 мкм и 50,8 ± 2,4 мкм соответственно), затем следовал метод открытой ложки (28,5 ± 1,9 мкм и 58 ± 1,3 мкм соответственно) и наименее точным методом оказался метод закрытой ложки (101,8 ± 6,3 мкм и 99 ± 1,7 мкм соответственно). Что касается САЗ, то наиболее точные результаты показали методы закрытой и открытой ложки (8,5 ± 0,7 мкм и 31,8 ± 0,9 мкм соответственно), наименее точный результат – методом цифрового оттиска (63,3 ± 3 мкм). Выводы. Для получения прецизионного оттиска с одиночного имплантата рекомендуется использовать цифровой протокол. А при получении традиционного оттиска методика открытой ложки показала наилучшие результаты, являясь более точной, чем методика закрытой ложки.

Subject. Currently, in prosthetic dentistry, significant attention is being paid to digital protocols. The conventional method of fabricating dental prostheses involves using silicone impression materials to obtain a working cast – a replica that closely mimics the spatial position of implants within the jawbone. The accuracy of this cast is a critical factor influencing the outcomes of prosthetic treatment. When performing implant-supported prosthetics, clinicians employ well-documented protocols using either open-tray or closed-tray impression techniques. Numerous scientific studies have compared the accuracy of conventional impressions to that of digital impressions. However, a comparative analysis of conventional impressions made with open-tray, closed-tray techniques and digital impressions has not been found in the literature. Therefore, conducting this comparative study represents a relevant and timely research objective. Objectives. A comparative analysis of implant-level impression techniques for single implant-supported crowns with the aim of minimizing prosthetic misfit and providing clinical recommendations. Materials and methods. A reference model fabricated via additive manufacturing from an STL file acquired through an intraoral scan of the patient served as the control. Conventional impressions were made using a polyvinyl siloxane material, while digital impressions were acquired with a 3Shape TRIOS intraoral scanner. Results. The smallest deviation from the reference model in the centro-occlusal (CO) and axio-occlusal (AO) zones was observed for the digital impression technique (17.5 ± 0.7 µm and 50.8 ± 2.4 µm, respectively), followed by the open-tray technique (28.5 ± 1.9 µm and 58.0 ± 1.3 µm, respectively). The closed-tray technique demonstrated the lowest accuracy (101.8 ± 6.3 µm and 99.0 ± 1.7 µm, respectively). Regarding the medio-axial (MA) zone, the most accurate results were obtained with the closed-tray and open-tray techniques (8.5 ± 0.7 µm and 31.8 ± 0.9 µm, respectively), while the digital impression method yielded the least accurate result (63.3 ± 3.0 µm). Conclusions. In conclusion, we would like to say that for taking precise impression from a single implant, it’s recommended to use a digital protocol and digital impression. For taking a conventional silicon impression, the open-tray technique showed the best results, being more accurate in compare the closed-tray technique.

 цифровые оттиски традиционные оттиски имплантаты точность интраоральное сканирование digital impressions conventional impressions dental implants accuracy intraoral scanning

Вольфарт Ш., Хардер С., Райх С. и др. Протезирование с опорой на имплантаты: планирование от результата: планирование, процесс лечения, выживаемость имплантатов и протезов, эстетика, функция, зуботехнические технологии. Москва: Азбука; 2016. 701 с. [Wolfart S., Harder S., Reich S. and others. Implant-based prosthetics: outcome-based planning: planning, treatment process, survival of implants and prostheses, aesthetics, function, dental technology. Moscow: ABC; 2016. 701 p. (In Russ.)]. Vol'fart Sh., Harder S., Rayh S. i dr. Protezirovanie s oporoy na implantaty: planirovanie ot rezul'tata: planirovanie, process lecheniya, vyzhivaemost' implantatov i protezov, estetika, funkciya, zubotehnicheskie tehnologii. Moskva: Azbuka; 2016. 701 s. [Wolfart S., Harder S., Reich S. and others. Implant-based prosthetics: outcome-based planning: planning, treatment process, survival of implants and prostheses, aesthetics, function, dental technology. Moscow: ABC; 2016. 701 p. (In Russ.)]. Ряховский А.Н., Мурадов М.А. Точный оттиск. Москва; 2006. 207 с. [Ryakhovsky A.N., Muradov M.A. Accurate impression. Moscow; 2006. 207 p. (In Russ.)]. Ryahovskiy A.N., Muradov M.A. Tochnyy ottisk. Moskva; 2006. 207 s. [Ryakhovsky A.N., Muradov M.A. Accurate impression. Moscow; 2006. 207 p. (In Russ.)]. Gupta R., Brizuela M. Dental Impression Materials. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34662010/ Gupta R., Brizuela M. Dental Impression Materials. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34662010/ Прохорова Е.В., Дунаев С.А., Афанасьева А.В., Уляшева Ж.А., Борисов В.В., Пустохина И.Г. Выбор слепочных материалов относительно клинической ситуации и сроков хранения готовых оттисков (обзорная статья). Вестник новых медицинских технологий. 2023;30(2):43-47. [Prokhorova E.V., Dunaev S.A., Afanasyeva A.V., Ulyasheva Zh.A., Borisov V.V., Pustokhina I.G. The choice of impression materials in relation to the clinical situation and the shelf life of the finished impressions (review article). Journal of New Medical Technologies. 2023;30(2):43-47. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.24412/1609-2163-2023-2-43-47 Prohorova E.V., Dunaev S.A., Afanas'eva A.V., Ulyasheva Zh.A., Borisov V.V., Pustohina I.G. Vybor slepochnyh materialov otnositel'no klinicheskoy situacii i srokov hraneniya gotovyh ottiskov (obzornaya stat'ya). Vestnik novyh medicinskih tehnologiy. 2023;30(2):43-47. [Prokhorova E.V., Dunaev S.A., Afanasyeva A.V., Ulyasheva Zh.A., Borisov V.V., Pustokhina I.G. The choice of impression materials in relation to the clinical situation and the shelf life of the finished impressions (review article). Journal of New Medical Technologies. 2023;30(2):43-47. (In Russ.)]. https://doi.org/10.24412/1609-2163-2023-2-43-47 Yoo S.Y., Kim S.K., Heo S.J., Koak J.Y., Kim J.G. Dimensional Accuracy of Dental Models for Three-Unit Prostheses Fabricated by Various 3D Printing Technologies. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(6):1550. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14061550 Yoo S.Y., Kim S.K., Heo S.J., Koak J.Y., Kim J.G. Dimensional Accuracy of Dental Models for Three-Unit Prostheses Fabricated by Various 3D Printing Technologies. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(6):1550. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14061550 Jeong Y.G., Lee W.S., Lee K.B. Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2018;10(3):245-251. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.245 Jeong Y.G., Lee W.S., Lee K.B. Accuracy evaluation of dental models manufactured by CAD/CAM milling method and 3D printing method. The journal of advanced prosthodontics. 2018;10(3):245-251. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.245 Zhang Z.C., Li P.L., Chu F.T., Shen G. Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy. Journal of orofacial orthopedics. 2019;80(4):194-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00180-y Zhang Z.C., Li P.L., Chu F.T., Shen G. Influence of the three-dimensional printing technique and printing layer thickness on model accuracy. Journal of orofacial orthopedics. 2019;80(4):194-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-019-00180-y Банерджи А., Тавараджа С. редакторы. Решение клинических проблем в стоматологии по Оделлу. Москва: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2024. 520 с. [Banerjee A., Tavaraja S. editors. Odell's Clinical Problem Solving in Dentistry. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2024. 520 p. (In Russ.)]. Banerdzhi A., Tavaradzha S. redaktory. Reshenie klinicheskih problem v stomatologii po Odellu. Moskva: GEOTAR-Media; 2024. 520 s. [Banerjee A., Tavaraja S. editors. Odell's Clinical Problem Solving in Dentistry. Moscow: GEOTAR-Media; 2024. 520 p. (In Russ.)]. Marques S., Ribeiro P., Falcão C., Lemos B.F., Ríos-Carrasco B., Ríos-Santos J.V. et al. Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021;18(3):1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031020 Marques S., Ribeiro P., Falcão C., Lemos B.F., Ríos-Carrasco B., Ríos-Santos J.V. et al. Digital Impressions in Implant Dentistry: A Literature Review. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2021;18(3):1020. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18031020 Imburgia M., Logozzo S., Hauschild U., Veronesi G., Mangano C., Mangano F.G. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4 Imburgia M., Logozzo S., Hauschild U., Veronesi G., Mangano C., Mangano F.G. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4 Liu X., Feng K., Dong L., Liu L., Ni L., Zheng D. Accuracy and Efficiency of Digitally Fabricated All-Ceramic Crowns from Conventional Impressions and Intraoral Scans: A Single-Blind Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2024;37(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8143 Liu X., Feng K., Dong L., Liu L., Ni L., Zheng D. Accuracy and Efficiency of Digitally Fabricated All-Ceramic Crowns from Conventional Impressions and Intraoral Scans: A Single-Blind Clinical Randomized Controlled Trial. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2024;37(1):8-15. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8143 Karl M., Taylor T.D. Bone Adaptation Induced by Non-Passively Fitting Implant Superstructures: A Randomized Clinical Trial. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2016;31(2):369-375. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4331 Karl M., Taylor T.D. Bone Adaptation Induced by Non-Passively Fitting Implant Superstructures: A Randomized Clinical Trial. The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants. 2016;31(2):369-375. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.4331 Kim J.H., Kim K.R., Kim S. Critical appraisal of implant impression accuracies: A systematic review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2015;114(2):185-192.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.005 Kim J.H., Kim K.R., Kim S. Critical appraisal of implant impression accuracies: A systematic review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2015;114(2):185-192.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.02.005 Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S., Ozan O., Ozcelik T.B., Yagiz A. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants. Journal of dentistry. 2014;42(12):1551-1559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.008 Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S., Ozan O., Ozcelik T.B., Yagiz A. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants. Journal of dentistry. 2014;42(12):1551-1559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.008 Chochlidakis K., Papaspyridakos P., Tsigarida A., Romeo D., Chen Y.W., Natto Z. et al. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. Journal of prosthodontics. 2020;29(4):281-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13162 Chochlidakis K., Papaspyridakos P., Tsigarida A., Romeo D., Chen Y.W., Natto Z. et al. Digital Versus Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Prospective Study on 16 Edentulous Maxillae. Journal of prosthodontics. 2020;29(4):281-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13162 Djurovic Koprivica D., Puskar T., Budak I., Sokac M., Jeremic Knezevic M., Maletin A. et al. Influence of Implant Impression Methods, Polymer Materials, and Implant Angulation on the Accuracy of Dental Models. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(14):2821. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142821 Djurovic Koprivica D., Puskar T., Budak I., Sokac M., Jeremic Knezevic M., Maletin A. et al. Influence of Implant Impression Methods, Polymer Materials, and Implant Angulation on the Accuracy of Dental Models. Polymers (Basel). 2022;14(14):2821. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14142821 Hoods-Moonsammy V.J., Owen P., Howes D.G. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2014;27(5):433-438. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4035 Hoods-Moonsammy V.J., Owen P., Howes D.G. A comparison of the accuracy of polyether, polyvinyl siloxane, and plaster impressions for long-span implant-supported prostheses. The International journal of prosthodontics. 2014;27(5):433-438. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4035 Rues S., Depré D., Stober T., Rammelsberg P., Zenthöfer A. Accuracy of polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions when using different types of 3D-printed impression trays - an in vitro study. Clinical oral investigations. 2024;28(10):560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05962-2 Rues S., Depré D., Stober T., Rammelsberg P., Zenthöfer A. Accuracy of polyether and vinylpolysiloxane impressions when using different types of 3D-printed impression trays - an in vitro study. Clinical oral investigations. 2024;28(10):560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-05962-2 Kim K.M., Lee J.S., Kim K.N., Shin S.W. Dimensional changes of dental impression materials by thermal changes. Journal of biomedical materials research. 2001;58(3):217-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(2001)58:3<217::aid-jbm1010>3.0.co;2-v Kim K.M., Lee J.S., Kim K.N., Shin S.W. Dimensional changes of dental impression materials by thermal changes. Journal of biomedical materials research. 2001;58(3):217-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(2001)58:3<217::aid-jbm1010>3.0.co;2-v Abduo J., Ho G., Centorame A., Chohan S., Park C., Abdouni R. et al. Marginal Accuracy of Monolithic and Veneered Zirconia Crowns Fabricated by Conventional and Digital Workflows. Journal of prosthodontics. 2023;32(8):706-713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13618 Abduo J., Ho G., Centorame A., Chohan S., Park C., Abdouni R. et al. Marginal Accuracy of Monolithic and Veneered Zirconia Crowns Fabricated by Conventional and Digital Workflows. Journal of prosthodontics. 2023;32(8):706-713. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13618 de Oliveira N.R.C., Pigozzo M.N., Sesma N., Laganá D.C. Clinical efficiency and patient preference of digital and conventional workflow for single implant crowns using immediate and regular digital impression: A meta-analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2020;31(8):669-686. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13604 de Oliveira N.R.C., Pigozzo M.N., Sesma N., Laganá D.C. Clinical efficiency and patient preference of digital and conventional workflow for single implant crowns using immediate and regular digital impression: A meta-analysis. Clinical oral implants research. 2020;31(8):669-686. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13604 Afrashtehfar K.I., Alnakeb N.A., Assery M.K.M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners versus traditional impressions: a rapid umbrella review. The journal of evidence-based dental practice. 2022;22(3):101719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719 Afrashtehfar K.I., Alnakeb N.A., Assery M.K.M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners versus traditional impressions: a rapid umbrella review. The journal of evidence-based dental practice. 2022;22(3):101719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719