Abstract
Purpose
This research aims to compare the accuracy of different auricular impression techniques
used to produce either a mirror image of the unaffected ear or a surgical stent and
template for auricular rehabilitation. The research compares two digital ear impression
techniques using an Intra-Oral digital Scanner (IOS) (with /without markers) versus
a traditional technique using hydrocolloid impression materials.
Material and methods
Eight participants were selected with intact right ears. Patients’ right ears were
digitally scanned with an IOS, once with resin markers and once without markers. A
conventional auricular impression was taken for each participant, which was then scanned
using a desktop scanner. The digital IOS technique with markers was set as a reference
model. Total 3D deviations between the study groups were calculated using Geomagic
control software (software for 3D coordinate measuring technology). An independent
sample t-test was used to make comparisons between the two tested groups.
Results
The conventional impression and the intraoral scan without markers recorded a mean
of 1.4057 ± 0.3581 and 0.7605±0.1469, respectively, of total 3D deviation from the
intraoral scan with markers. There was a significant difference in auricular impression
accuracy between conventional and intraoral scans without markers.
Conclusions
Using intraoral scanners facilitates impression acquisition and increases the accuracy
compared to traditional hydrocolloid impression techniques, which may affect the shape
of tissue due to its liability to be compressed by the impression material.
Using markers allows for very precise data collection, reducing stitching complications
that affect the accuracy of scans taken without markers.
Clinical Significance
The proposed technique for auricular digital impression using an intraoral scanner
guarantees a fast technique with accurate results in acquiring anatomical data for
the rehabilitation of ear defects.
This research was registered on clinicaltrials.gov with the following registration
number: NCT04893902.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic SurgeryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation: A survey on the quality of life.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120 (Available from:): 780-786https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.03.032
- Maxillofacial prosthetic rehabilitation: A survey on the quality of life.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 780-786
- Auricular prostheses attached to osseointegrated implants: Multidisciplinary work-up and clinical evaluation.Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2019; 276 (Available from:): 1017-1027https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-019-05311-0
- Epiplating in auricular defects as a facial reconstruction method: Case series.J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 77 (Available from:): 183.e1-183.e8https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.08.026
- Rehabilitation of auricular defect with implant‑retained auricular prosthesis: A case report.Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2018; 8: 121-123
- Dental implant: Retained auricular prosthesis.Dent Res J. 2018; : 444-446
- Digital workflow of auricular rehabilitation: A technical report using an intraoral scanner.J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 596-600
- Rapid prototyping technology for silicone auricular prosthesis fabrication: A pilot study.J Head Neck Physicians Surg. 2021; 9: 35
- A systematic review of the computerized tools and digital techniques applied to fabricate nasal, auricular, orbital and ocular prostheses for facial defect rehabilitation [Internet].Journal of Stomatology, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 121. Elsevier Masson SAS, 2020: 268-277https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2019.10.003 (Available from:)
- Implementation of 3D technologies in the workflow of auricular prosthetics: A method using optical scanning and stereolithography 3D printing.J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125: 708-713
- Designing 3D prosthetic templates for maxillofacial defect rehabilitation: A comparative analysis of different virtual workflows.Comput Biol Med. 2020; 118 (Available from:)103646https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2020.103646
- Prosthetic reconstruction of a patient with an acquired nasal defect using extraoral implants and a CAD/CAM copy-milled bar.J Prosthodont. 2014; 23: 582-587
- Multimaterial 3D printing of a definitive silicone auricular prosthesis: An improved technique.J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125 (Available from:): 946-950https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.02.021
- A 3D printed patient specific artificial outer ear model for use in auricle reconstruction surgery: A clinical feasibility study.Addit Manuf Meets Med. 2021; 3: 3-4
- Combined use of a facial scanner and an intraoral scanner to acquire a digital scan for the fabrication of an orbital prosthesis.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121 (Available from:): 531-534https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.05.019
- Designing and manufacturing an auricular prosthesis using computed tomography, 3-dimensional photographic imaging, and additive manufacturing: A clinical report.J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 105: 78-82
- Development and application of a rapid rehabilitation system for reconstruction of maxillofacial soft-tissue defects related to war and traumatic injuries.Mil Med Res. 2014; 1: 11
- A digital approach integrating facial scanning in a CAD-CAM workflow for complete-mouth implant-supported rehabilitation of patients with edentulism: A pilot clinical study.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 486-492
- Advancements in CAD/CAM technology: Options for practical implementation.J Prosthodont Res. 2016; 60: 72-84
- Intra-oral scanners: A new eye in dentistry.Austin J Orthop Rheumatol. 2015; 2: 1023
- Intraoral scanning systems: A current overview.Int J Comput Dent. 2015; 18: 101-129
- A combined digital technique to fabricate an implant-retained auricular prosthesis for rehabilitation of hemifacial microsomia.J Prosthet Dent. 2021; (Available from:): 1-4https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.037
- Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression.J Heal Eng. 2017; 20178427595
- A simple and accurate method for the production of a personalized two-dimensional auricular template.Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020; 44 (Available from:): 1106-1107https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01674-6
- Auricle shaping using 3D printing and autologous diced cartilage.Laryngoscope. 2019; 129: 2467-2474
- Fully digital workflow for fabrication of a 3D printed ear stent for auricular keloids: A technique article.J Prosthodont. 2022; 31: 266-270
- Photogrammetric morphometric analysis of auricle.Int J Med Sci Public Heal. 2018; 7: 1
- Standardized measurement of auricle: A method of high‑precision and reliability based on 3D scanning and Mimics software.Exp Ther Med. 2019; : 4575-4582
- Retention of different attachment systems for digitally designed mandibular implant overdenture.J Prosthodont. 2022;
- Fully digital workflow for reinforced mandibular implant overdenture: A novel method.J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2022; 22: 205-209
- Comparison of two impression techniques for auricular prosthesis: Pilot study.J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013; 50: 1079-1087
- A two-step functional impression technique for the fabrication of an implant-retained silicone auricular prosthesis.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117 (Available from:): 444-447https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.08.006
- Retention of bar clip attachment for mandibular implant overdenture.BMC Oral Health. 2022; 22 (Available from:): 1-8https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02262-7
- Effect of different software programs on the accuracy of dental scanner using three-dimensional analysis.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18
- Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment.Dent Mater. 2019; 35 (Available from:): 495-500https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.012
- How to calculate sample size for different study designs in medical research?.Indian J Psychol Med. 2013; 35: 121-126
- Identifying and avoiding bias in research.Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010; 126: 619-625
- G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.Behav Res methods. 2007; 39: 175-191
Field A. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics. 4th ed. London, California, New Delhi. SAGE Publ Ltd.;
- Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations.Eur J Epidemiol. 2016; 31: 337-350
- Comparing one or two means using the t-test.in: Elliott AC Woodward WA Statistical Analysis Quick Reference Guidebook: With SPSS Examples. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks: California2007: 47-75
- Comparison of digital intraoral scanners and alginate impressions: Time and patient satisfaction.Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2018; 153: 534-541
- An implant-retained auricular impression technique to minimize soft tissue distortion.J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 97-101
- Auricular prostheses produced using conventional and digital workflows: A clinical report on esthetic outcomes.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 63-66
- CAD/CAM ear model and virtual construction of the mold.J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98: 339-343
Article info
Publication history
Published online: August 04, 2022
Accepted:
August 1,
2022
Received:
April 5,
2022
Identification
Copyright
© 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
