Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level

Effect of supramucosal height of a scan body and implant angulation on the accuracy of intraoral scanning: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) provide a digital alternative to conventional implant impression techniques. However, the effect of the supramucosal height of the scan body and implant angulation on the accuracy of IOSs remains unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the impact of the supramucosal height of the scan body and implant angulation on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral digital implant scans in partially edentulous models.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two maxillary partially edentulous casts with 4 implant analogs were fabricated, 1 with 4 parallel implants (P-groups) and 1 with 2 implants distally inclined 18 degrees (A-groups). An implant scan body was positioned on each implant analog (CARES RC Mono Scanbody). For each cast, 3 subgroups were determined based on the soft tissue moulage fabricated for each reference cast exposing 3 mm (P-3 and A-3 subgroups), 5 mm (P-5 and A-5 subgroups), and 7 mm (P-7 and A-7 subgroups) of the implant scan bodies. The 2 reference casts were registered by using a coordinate measurement machine and desktop scanner (7 Series Dental Wings) and then scanned using an IOS (TRIOS 4) (n=15). Linear and angular discrepancy values and root mean square (RMS) error values between the implant scan bodies measured on the reference and experimental scans were computed with an inspection software program (Geomagic). Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction were applied for planned comparisons (α=.05/9 ≈ .006).

RESULTS

For linear discrepancies, statistically significant differences were found between groups P-3 and A-3 (P=.004) and between P-7 and A-7 (P=.005). For angular discrepancies, statistically significant differences were found between groups A-3 and A-5 (P=.002) and between P-7 and A-7 (P=.003). The RMS error analysis found no statistically significant differences among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation of 18 degrees did not significantly affect the accuracy of the intraoral scans in terms of 6 of the 9 planned comparisons, although the angled groups had lower mean values. Also, the supramucosal height of the scan body did not significantly affect the accuracy of the intraoral scans in terms of 17 of the 18 planned comparisons. Results may vary with different implant scan body designs.

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of digitizing conventional impressions to intraoral surface scans for all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary arch model with four implants placed in an all-on-four design was fabricated. Intraoral surface scans (n = 10) were obtained using an intraoral scanner after scan body insertion. For conventional polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the model, implant copings were inserted into the implant fixation for implant level, opened tray impressions (n = 10). The model and conventional impressions were digitized to obtain digital files. A reference file was created using a laboratory-scanned conventional standard tessellation language (STL) file with analog to scan the body using exocad software. STL datasets from the two digital and conventional impression groups were superimposed with reference files to assess the 3D deviations. Two-way ANOVA and paired-samples t-test was performed to assess the difference in trueness and examine the effects of impression technique and implant angulation on the deviation amount.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the conventional impression and intraoral surface scan groups F(1, 76) = 2.705, p = 0.104. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and digital straight implants and between conventional and digital tilted implants F(1, 76) = .041, p = 0.841. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and conventional tilted implants p = 0.07 and between digital straight and digital tilted implants p = 0.08.

CONCLUSION

Digital scans were more accurate than conventional impressions. The digital straight implants were more accurate than the conventional straight implants, and the digital tilted implants were more accurate than the conventional tilted implants, with higher accuracy for digital straight implants.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of digital and conventional impression methods for fixed dentures

BACKGROUND

Digital impression technique or computer-aided impression (CAI) has been recently concluded as a clinically acceptable alternative to conventional impression method (CIM) in the fabrication of crowns, short fixed partial dentures (FPDs), and implant-supported crowns.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the patients' opinion and subjective perception of two different ways of impression - digital and conventional.

METHODS

A total of 45 patients were treated with CAI and CIM for the fabrication of tooth or implant-supported crowns. They fulfilled a questionnaire including 11 questions regarding the treatment time, gag reflex, discomfort related to manipulation, and other aspects of treatment.

RESULTS

CAI was considered the preferential method for future treatment in 53% of patients, whereas 28.9% of the respondents preferred CIM. The preference for the impression method was influenced by the total time spent with the procedure, discomfort during manipulation with the tray or scanning head, size of the tray or scanning head, maximal opening discomfort, and (the tendency towards) gag reflex.

CONCLUSION

CAI was considered a more comfortable and preferential method. Discomfort or difficulties during CAI negatively affected the patients' attitude to CAI, whereas the difficulties associated with CIM did not have any influence on the preferred method.

Comparison of 3D positional accuracy of implant analogs in printed resin models versus conventional stone casts: Effect of implant angulation

PURPOSE

To study the effect of implant angulation on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in printed resin models and conventional stone casts.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three sectional master models with two implants with total inter-implant angulations of 0°, 10°, and 20° were fabricated. For each master model, five conventional stone casts (CS) and printed resin models (PM) were fabricated (n = 5). Test models were made with nonsplinted impression copings and open tray polyether impressions for the CS groups and scan bodies scanned using an intraoral scanner for the PM groups. The physical positions of the implants and implant analogs were measured with a coordinate measuring machine. 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D positional accuracy of the analogs in the test models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyze data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Mean ΔR was significantly greater for PM10 (73.5 ± 8.9 µm) and PM20 (65.5 ± 33.3 µm) compared to CS0 (16.8 ± 14.1 µm), CS10 (22.2 ± 13.0 µm), CS20 (15.6 ± 19.9 µm), and PM0 (23.9 ± 16.1 µm). For Absdθ, there were no significant differences between test groups.

CONCLUSIONS

With conventional stone casts, implant angulation had no significant effect on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions. Amongst printed resin models test groups, angulated implants had significantly greater ΔR. Amongst angulated implants test groups, printed resin models had significantly greater ΔR than conventional stone casts. Compared to the master model, all test groups, regardless of inter-implant angulation, produced greater inter-analog distances.

Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

PURPOSE

To compare the trueness and precision of different impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses between extraoral and intraoral conditions at different locations.

METHODS

Six volunteers participated in this study. A resin block with two parallel analogs was fabricated as an implant site simulator (ISS). The ISS was bonded to a molded ethylene vinyl acetate sheet to create a reference model. For each participant, four reference models were prepared based on the locations of the ISSs: maxillary posterior/anterior region (MaxP/MaxA) and mandibular posterior/anterior region (ManP/ManA). Five impressions were taken extraorally using the open-tray (conventional implant impression technique, CIT) and intraoral scanning (digital implant impression technique, DIT) techniques. The reference models were positioned in the participants' mouths, and impressions were obtained intraorally using the CIT and DIT. The interanalog distance (d) and angulation (θ) were measured to calculate trueness (Δd, Δθ) and precision (dP, θP). Two-way ANOVA and t tests were performed (α=0.05).

RESULTS

For the DIT, under intraoral conditions, the Δd and Δθ in MaxP and Δθ in ManP were significantly higher than those under extraoral conditions. For the CIT, under intraoral conditions, the Δd and Δθ in ManA and ManP and Δθ in MaxP were significantly lower than those under extraoral conditions. No significant differences in the dP and θP of either DIT or CIT were observed between the two conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoral conditions affected the trueness of DIT and CIT in different regions but had no influence on precision.

Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported prostheses are technique-sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer an alternative to conventional impression making.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete arch implant scans and to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks fabricated with SPG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Laboratory scanning of gypsum casts, SPG, and IOS were performed for all participants. The data regarding the abutment platform were superimposed to calculate the 3D deviation of SPG and IOS compared with that of laboratory scanning as an evaluation of accuracy. The effect of implant position and number on accuracy was analyzed. The more accurate technique between SPG and IOS was used to fabricate the titanium frameworks, as was laboratory scanning. The passive fit of the frameworks was assessed by clinical examination, the Sheffield test, and panoramic radiography.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants (21 arches, 120 implants) were included. The accuracy of SPG ranged from 2.70 μm to 92.80 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 17.00 (11.68, 22.50) μm, which was significantly more accurate than that of IOS, ranging from 21.30 μm to 815.60 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 48.95 (34.78, 75.88) μm. No significant correlation was found between position or number of implants and 3D deviation in the SPG group. A weak positive correlation was found between implant number and 3D deviation in the IOS group. SPG and laboratory scanning were used to fabricate titanium frameworks. The passive fit between the frameworks and abutment platforms was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

SPG, which was not affected by position or number of implants, was more accurate than IOS and comparable with laboratory scanning. The frameworks fabricated based on SPG and laboratory scanning were comparable in their passive fit. The SPG technique may be an alternative to laboratory scanning for complete arch implant scans.

Predictability of intraoral scanner error for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to analyze the behaviors of three intraoral scanners (IOSs): evaluating the interdistance and axial inclination discrepancies in full-arch scans, predictable errors were searched.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six edentulous sample models with variable numbers of dental implants were used; reference data were obtained with a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM). Each IOS (i.e., Primescan, CS3600, and Trios3) performed 10 scans per model (180 total scans). The origin of each scan body was used as a reference point to measure interdistance lengths and axial inclinations. Precision and trueness of interdistance measurements and axial inclinations were evaluated to address error predictability. Bland-Altman analysis, followed by linear regression analysis and Friedman's test (plus Dunn's post hoc correction), was performed to evaluate the precision and trueness.

RESULTS

Regarding interdistance, Primescan showed the best precision (mean ± SD: 0.047 ± 0.020 mm), while Trios3 underestimated the reference value more than the others (p < 0.001) and had the worst performance (mean ± SD: -0.079 ± 0.048 mm). Concerning the inclination angle, Primescan and Trios3 tended to overestimate angle values, while CS3600 underestimated them. Primescan had fewer inclination angle outliers, but it tended to add 0.4-0.6° to the measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

IOSs showed predictable errors: they tended to overestimate or underestimate linear measurements and axial inclinations of scan bodies, one added 0.4-0.6° to the angle inclination values. In particular, they showed heteroscedasticity, a behavior probably related to the software or the device itself.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

IOSs showed predictable errors that could affect clinical success. When performing a scan or choosing a scanner, clinicians should clearly know their behaviors.

In Vitro Comparison of Three Intraoral Scanners for Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses

With continuing technological developments, there have been advances in the field of fixed prosthetics, particularly in impression-taking techniques. These technological advances mean that a wide variety of diagnostic and/or rehabilitation possibilities can be explored without the need for physical models. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three intraoral scanners used in oral implant rehabilitation using an extraoral scanner as a reference and varying the scanning area. Three models representing different clinical scenarios were scanned 15 times by each intraoral scanner and three times by the extraoral scanner. The readings were analyzed and overlaid using engineering software (Geomagic^® Control X software (Artec Europe, Luxembourg)). Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found between the three intraoral scanners, iTero^® (Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), Medit^® (Medit^®: Seoul, Korea), and Planmeca^® (Planmeca^®: Helsinki, Finland). In all clinical scenarios, the iTero^® scanner had the best trueness (24.4 μm), followed by the Medit^® (26.4 μm) and Planmeca^® (42.1 μm). The Medit^® showed the best precision (18.00 μm) followed by the iTero^® (19.20 μm) and Planmeca^® (34.30 μm). We concluded that the iTero^® scanner had the highest reproducibility and accuracy in the clinical setting.

Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression" and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.

Influence of Implant Scanbody Wear on the Accuracy of Digital Impression for Complete-Arch: A Randomized In Vitro Trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant scanbody (ISB) wear on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch. A polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) edentulous mandibular model with four internal hexagonal interlocking conical connections was scanned with an extraoral optical scanner to achieve a reference file. Four cylindrical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) ISBs were scanned 30 times with IOS, and the test files were aligned to the reference file with a best-fit algorithm. For each analog linear (ΔX, ΔY and ΔZ-axis) and angular deviations (ΔANGLE) were assessed. Euclidean distance (ΔEUC) was calculated from the linear deviation, reporting a mean of 82 µm (SD 61) ranging from 8 to 347 µm. ΔANGLE error mean was 0.33° (SD 0.20), ranging from 0.02 to 0.92°. From a multivariate analysis, when ΔEUC was considered as a response variable, a significant influence of ISB wear by scan number in interaction to position for implant 3.6 was identified (p < 0.0001); when ΔANGLE was considered as a response variable, a significant effect of position 3.6 was recorded ((p < 0.0001). The obtained results showed that the ISB wear negatively influenced the accuracy of IOS, suggesting that ISB base wear could be detrimental for the seating of ISBs on angulated implants.

Effect of Scanner Type and Scan Body Location on the Accuracy of Mandibular Complete-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study

Purpose

To compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of scans of a newly introduced intraoral scanner (IOS) (Virtuo Vivo) and a widely used IOS (Trios 3) to a laboratory scanner (LBS) (Cares 7 SERIES) for 6 implants placed in an edentulous mandible, and to investigate the effect of scan body location on trueness.

Material and methods

Scanbodies were tightened on 6 implants placed in an edentulous polymethylmethacrylate mandibular model. An industrial scanner was utilized to generate a master reference model STL file. Three different scanners were used to scan the model (2 IOSs and 1 LBS), and the scans (n = 10) were exported into STL files. Best‐fitting algorithm was used to superimpose test scans over the MRM‐STL (nominal). ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were performed to analyze the data (α = 0.05).

Results

The distance deviations in Car7‐LBS scans were the highest (p < 0.001), whereas those in Tri‐IOS scans were the lowest (p < 0.001). Vir‐IOS had lower angular deviations than those of Tri‐IOS (p = 0.031). In Vir‐IOS scans, SB5 had higher distance deviations than SB2 (p = 0.029) and SB3 (p = 0.044). In Car7‐LBS scans, SB1 had higher distance deviations than SB3 (p = 0.015) and SB5 (p = 0.005). In Tri‐IOS scans, SB1 had higher mean distance deviations than SB2 and SB5 (p = 0.005). Vir‐IOS had lower precision than Car7‐LBS (distance deviation data) (p = 0.01). No difference was found among scanners for the precision of angular deviation data (p = 0.840).

Conclusion

When trueness and precision were considered, distance and angular deviations depended on the scanner type. None of the scanners outperformed others in accuracy considering all distance and angular deviations. Scan body location affected only the trueness (distance deviations).

The Influence of Hard- and Software Improvement of Intraoral Scanners on the Implant Transfer Accuracy from 2012 to 2021: An In Vitro Study

This study aimed to investigate the transfer accuracy (trueness and precision) of three different intraoral scanning families using different hardware and software versions over the last decade from 2012 to 2021, compared to a conventional impression. Therefore, an implant master model with a reference cube was digitized and served as a reference dataset. Digital impressions of all three scanning families (True definition, TRIOS, CEREC) were recorded (n = 10 per group), and conventional implant impressions were taken (n = 10). The conventional models were digitized, and all models (conventional and digital) were measured. Therefore, it was possible to obtain the deviations between the master model and the scans or conventional models in terms of absolute three-dimensional (3D) deviations, deviations in rotation, and angulation. The results for deviations between the older and newer scanning systems were analyzed using pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05; SPSS 26). The absolute 3D deviations increased with increasing scan path length, particularly for the older hardware and software versions (old vs. new (MW ± SD) True Definition: 355 ± 62 µm vs. 483 ± 110 µm; TRIOS: 574 ± 274 µm vs. 258 ± 100 µm; and CEREC: 1356 ± 1023 µm vs. 110 ± 49 µm). This was also true for deviations in rotation and angulation. The conventional impression showed an advantage only regarding the absolute 3D deviation compared to the older systems. Based on the data of the present study, the accuracy of intraoral scanners is decisively related to hardware and software; though, newer systems or software do not necessarily warrant improvement. Nevertheless, to achieve high transfer accuracy, regular updating of digital systems is recommended. The challenge of increasing errors with increasing scan paths is overcome in the most recent systems. The combination of two different scanning principles in a single device seems to be beneficial.

A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to systematically compare the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions in patients using a new reference key-based method.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-nine cases were included in the study (upper jaw 22 edentulous, 8 partially edentulous, average distance between implants 30.15 ± 11.18 mm; lower jaw 6 cases edentulous, 3 cases partially edentulous, average distance between implants 33.19 ± 14.85 mm). Individual reference keys were manufactured and reversibly fixed on implants. A conventional (CVI) and a digital (DI) implant impression was made. The implant positions (center points) of conventional and digital models were measured (coordinate-measuring machine/three-dimensional analysis software) and superimposed with the positions of the reference keys to compare the deviations of the conventional and digital models. For statistical analysis, ANOVA with MIXED procedure was applied (p < .05).

RESULTS

Mean deviation ranged from 0.040±0.029 mm (DI/upper jaw) to 0.079 ± 0.050 mm (DI/lower jaw). There were significant differences between the CVI and DI impressions in the lower jaw (p < .05). No significant differences in transfer accuracy were found between partially and completely edentulous patients for the impression methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that full-arch digital implant impressions of the upper jaw in partially or completely edentulous patients showed comparable results to conventional implant impressions. However, with regard to the implant position transfer accuracy, there are still limitations for digital impression in the lower jaw.

Accuracy of 3D Printed Implant Casts Versus Stone Casts: A Comparative Study in the Anterior Maxilla

PURPOSE

To conduct an in vitro comparison of the amount of three-dimensional (3D) deviation of 3D printed casts generated from digital implant impressions with an intraoral scanner (IOS) to stone casts made of conventional impressions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary master cast with partially edentulous anterior area was fabricated with two internal connection implants (Regular CrossFit, Straumann). Stone casts (n = 10) that served as a control were fabricated with the splinted open-tray impression technique. Twenty digital impressions were made using a white light IOS (TRIOS, 3shape) and the Standard Tesselation Language (STL) files obtained were saved. Based on the STL files, a digital light processing (DLP) and a stereolithographic (SLA) 3D printer (Varseo S and Form 2) were used to print casts (n = 10 from each 3D printer). The master cast and all casts generated from each group were digitized using the same IOS. The STL files obtained were superimposed on the master cast STL file (reference) to evaluate the amount of 3D deviation with inspection software using the root mean square value (RMS). The independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn's test with Bonferroni correction (for post hoc comparisons) were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

The Varseo S group had the lowest median RMS value [77.5 µm (IQR = 91.4-135.4)], followed closely by the Conventional group [77.7 µm (IQR = 61.5-93.4)]. The Form 2 had the highest mean value [98.8 µm (IQR = 57.6-87.9)]. The independent-samples Kruskal-Wallis test revealed a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.018). Post hoc testing revealed a significant difference between Varseo S and Form 2 (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The casts generated from the Varseo S 3D printer had better 3D accuracy than did those from the Form 2 3D printer. Both the Varseo S group and the conventional stone casts groups had similar 3D accuracy.

The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced through a direct digital workflow were reported.

METHODS

A MEDLINE (Pubmed) search of the relevant English-language literature spanning from January 1st 2015 until March 31st 2020 was conducted. In vitro studies comparing digital implant impression accuracy by different IOS devices or in vitro studies examining differences in accuracy between digital and conventional impression procedures were included. Also, RCTs, clinical trials and case series on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, manufactured completely digitally were included. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting on restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow, case reports and non-English language articles were excluded. The aim was to investigate the accuracy of IOS for single and multiple fixed implant restorations compared to the conventional impression methods and report on the variables that influence it. Finally, this study aimed to report on the survival and success of fixed implant-retained restorations fabricated using the direct digital workflow.

RESULTS

For the single and short-span implant sites, IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression was identified. Moreover, complete-arch IOS impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. Factors related to scanbody design as well as scanner generation, scanning range and interimplant distance were found to influence complete-arch scanning accuracy. Single implant-retained monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates and minor complications for short to medium follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Nevertheless, intraoral scanning exhibited high accuracy both for single and multiple implant restorations. Available literature on single-implant monolithic restorations manufactured through a complete digital workflow shows promising results for a follow-up of 3-5 years.

Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: A systematic literature review

Background

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of digital impression techniques for implant-supported restorations, and to assess their economic feasibility.

Material and Methods

Two independent electronic database searches were conducted in the Pubmed/MedLine, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases complimented by a manual search, selecting relevant clinical and in vitro studies published between 1st January 2009 and 28st February 2019. All type of studies (in vivo and in vitro) were included in this systematic review.

Results

Twenty-seven studies (8 in vivo and 19 in vitro studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No meta-analysis was performed due to a large heterogeneity of the study protocols. The passive fit of superstructures on dental implants presented similar results between digital and conventional impression techniques. The studies considered that several factors influence the accuracy of implant impression taking: distance and angulation between implants, depth of placement, type of scanner, scanning strategy, characteristics of scanbody, and operator experience. Regarding the economic viability of intraoral scanning systems, only one study reported any benefit in comparison with conventional techniques.

Conclusions

Digital impressions of dental implants can be considered a viable alternative in cases of one or two contiguous dental implants. However, more studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of digital techniques in full-arch implant-supported restorations.

Key words:Intraoral scanner, dental implant, prosthesis, misfit, systematic review.

Accuracy of Implant Analogs in 3D Printed Resin Models

PURPOSE

To study the effect of implant analog system, print orientation, and analog holder radial offset on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in 3D printed resin models.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sectional master model simulating a 2-implant, 3-unit fixed prosthesis in a partially edentulous jaw was fabricated. Three implant analog systems for 3D printed resin models-Straumann (ST), Core3DCentres (CD) and Medentika (MD)-were tested. The corresponding scan bodies were secured onto the implants and scanned using an intraoral scanner. Models were obtained with a Digital Light Processing printer. Each implant analog system had 2 print orientations (transverse [X] and perpendicular [Y] to the printer door) and 2 analog holder radial offsets (0.04 mm and 0.06 mm), for a total of 60 models. The physical positions of the implants in the master model and the analogs in the printed resin models were directly measured with a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D accuracy of the analogs in the printed models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyse data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Mean ΔR for ST (-155.7 ± 60.6 µm), CD (124.9 ± 65.0 µm) and MD (-92.9 ± 48.0 µm) were significantly different (p < 0.01). Mean Absdθ was not significantly different between ST (0.57 ± 0.48°) and CD (0.41 ± 0.27°), but both were significantly different from MD (2.11 ± 1.14°) (p < 0.01). Print orientation had a significant effect on ΔR only but no discernible trend could be found. Analog holder radial offset had no significant effect on ΔR and Absdθ.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant analog system had a significant effect on ΔR and Absdθ. Compared to the master model, CD produced greater mean interanalog distances, while ST and MD produced smaller mean interanalog distances. MD exhibited the greatest mean angular distortion which was significantly greater than ST and CD.

Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Previous studies have analyzed factors influencing intraoral scanner accuracy; however, how the intraoral scan body design affects the implant position on the virtual definitive cast is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the discrepancies of the implant replica positions of the virtual definitive implant cast obtained by using 3 different scan body designs when performing a digital scan.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A partially edentulous typodont with 3 implant replicas (Implant Replica RP Branemark system; Nobel Biocare Services AG) was prepared. Three groups were determined based on the scan body system evaluated: SB-1 (Elos Accurate Nobel Biocare), SB-2 (NT Digital Implant Technology), and SB-3 (Dynamic Abutment). Each scan body was positioned on each implant replica of the typodont, and was digitized by using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element; Cadent) as per the manufacturer's scanning protocol at 1000 lux illuminance. A standard tessellation language (STL) file was obtained. Before the scan bodies were removed from the typodont, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM Contura G2 10/16/06 RDS; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH) was used to measure the scan body positions on the x-, y-, and z-axis. The linear and angular discrepancies between the position of the scan bodies on the typodont and STL file were calculated by using the best fit technique with a specific program (Calypso; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH). The procedure was repeated until 10 STL files were obtained per group. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were not normally distributed. The data were analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The coordinate measuring machine was unable to measure the scan body positions of the magnetically retained SB-3 group because of its mobility when palpating at the smallest pressure possible. Therefore, this group was excluded. No significant differences were found in the linear discrepancies between the SB-1 and SB-2 groups (P>.05). The most accurate scan body position was obtained on the z-axis. However, the SB-1 group revealed a significantly higher XZ angular discrepancy than the SB-2 group (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The scan body systems tested (SB-1 and SB-2 groups) accurately transferred the linear implant positions to the virtual definitive implant cast. However, significant differences were observed in the XZ angular implant positions between the scan body systems analyzed.

The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry

Optical technology has provided a paradigm shift in implant dentistry. However, there is little information about the use of optical technology in implant dentistry, since this technology is relatively new and has been evolving under the current conditions. In the present narrative literature review, the effects of intraoral scanners (IOSs) use on accuracy and the operating time, as well as safety and patient perception, in implant dentistry were evaluated from the clinical perspective. The accuracy of digital scans with IOSs was comparable to the conventional impression techniques for single or partial prostheses, and the digital scans with IOSs are time efficient when taking impressions for single- or double-abutments. However, the accuracy and time efficiency are decreased for multiple implant scans or large-area scans with IOSs use. Patient satisfaction with and preference for IOSs scans are generally superior to those with conventional impression procedures.

Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position

The aim of this study was to evaluate the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs) for digital impression of simulated implant scan bodies in a partially edentulous model. A 3D printed partially edentulous mandible model made of Co-Cr with a total of 6 bilaterally positioned cylinders in the canine, second premolar, and second molar area served as the study model. Digital scans of the model were made with a reference scanner (steroSCAN neo) and 5 IOSs (CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, i500, iTero Element, and TRIOS 3) (n = 10). For each IOS’s dataset, the XYZ coordinates of the cylinders were obtained from the reference point and the deviations from the reference scanner were calculated using a 3D reverse engineering program (Rapidform). The trueness values were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney post hoc test. Direction and amount of deviation differed among cylinder position and among IOSs. Regardless of the IOS type, the cylinders positioned on the left second molar, nearest to the scanning start point, showed the smallest deviation. The deviation generally increased further away from scanning start point towards the right second molar. TRIOS 3 and i500 outperformed the other IOSs for partially edentulous digital impression. The accuracy of the CEREC Omnicam, CS3600, and iTero Element were similar on the left side, but they showed more deviations on the right side of the arch when compared to the other IOSs. The accuracy of IOS is still an area that needs to be improved.

Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Until now, a few studies have addressed the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in implantology. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy of 5 different IOSs in the impressions of single and multiple implants, and to compare them.

METHODS

Plaster models were prepared, representative of a partially edentulous maxilla (PEM) to be restored with a single crown (SC) and a partial prosthesis (PP), and a totally edentulous maxilla (TEM) to be restored with a full-arch (FA). These models were scanned with a desktop scanner, to capture reference models (RMs), and with 5 IOSs (CS 3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, DWIO®, Emerald®); 10 scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into a reverse-engineering software where they were superimposed on the corresponding RMs, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

In the SC, CS 3600® had the best trueness (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), followed by Trios3® (22.3 ± 0.5 μm), DWIO® (27.8 ± 3.2 μm), Omnicam® (28.4 ± 4.5 μm), Emerald® (43.1 ± 11.5 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best trueness (23 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (28.5 ± 0.5 μm), Omnicam® (38.1 ± 8.8 μm), Emerald® (49.3 ± 5.5 μm), DWIO® (49.8 ± 5 μm). In the FA, CS 3600® had the best trueness (44.9 ± 8.9 μm), followed by Trios3® (46.3 ± 4.9 μm), Emerald® (66.3 ± 5.6 μm), Omnicam® (70.4 ± 11.9 μm), DWIO® (92.1 ± 24.1 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in trueness was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). In the SC, CS 3600® had the best precision (11.3 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), DWIO® (27.1 ± 10.7 μm), Omnicam® (30.6 ± 3.3 μm), Emerald® (32.8 ± 10.7 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best precision (17 ± 2.3 μm), followed by Trios3® (21 ± 1.9 μm), Emerald® (29.9 ± 8.9 μm), DWIO® (34.8 ± 10.8 μm), Omnicam® (43.2 ± 9.4 μm). In the FA, Trios3® had the best precision (35.6 ± 3.4 μm), followed by CS 3600® (35.7 ± 4.3 μm), Emerald® (61.5 ± 18.1 μm), Omnicam® (89.3 ± 14 μm), DWIO® (111 ± 24.8 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in precision was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA).

CONCLUSIONS

The IOSs showed significant differences between them, both in trueness and in precision. The mathematical error increased in the transition from SC to PP up to FA, both in trueness than in precision.

Immediate loading of multiple splinted implants via complete digital workflow: A pilot clinical study with 1-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Complete digital workflow attracts more attention in implant dentistry.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the feasibility and short-term clinical results of immediate loading of multiple implants with fixed temporary bridges (2-4 teeth span) by complete digital workflow, and to evaluate the three-dimensional (3D) deviation of digital impression comparing with traditional impression method.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 31 partial edentulous patients (16 females and 15 males) were recruited in this study. Digital impressions were taken immediately after implant placement, and implant-supported splinted temporary bridges were fabricated through a full digital approach (model free) and delivered within 24 hours. Final restorations were finished 4 months after surgery via traditional impression technique. Subjects were followed 1 year after treatment. 3D impression deviations were analyzed by comparing the digital and conventional impression methods. Time costs for the full digital approach were recorded. Implant survival rate, marginal bone levels were evaluated.

RESULTS

All the recruited subjects finished this study. Seventy-four implants were surgically placed and immediately loaded with 34 temporary bridges fabricated through a full digital approach. Digital impression deviation compared with traditional impression method was 27.43 ± 13.47 μm. Time costs for chair side and laboratory were 32.55 ± 4.73 and 69.30 ± 10.87 minutes, respectively. Marginal bone alterations were -1.58 mm and -1.69 mm at the time of 4 and 12 months after surgery. The implants had a survival rate of 100% at the 1-year follow-up time.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate loading of multiple implants in partial edentulous (2-4 teeth span) patients with full digital approach is clinically applicable. The 3D discrepancy between digital and traditional impression is within clinical acceptable range.

Digital Implant Impression Technique Accuracy: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The objective was to provide a comprehensive systematic review about the accuracy of digital implant impression in comparison with the conventional implant impression approach.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane databases were used to classify the related articles with no year limitation in 3 stages by 2 reviewers. Finally, 10 articles were included based on inclusion and exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Five articles supported the use of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry. The two in vivo pilot studies showed that digital scanning is not reliable and could not be used in clinical routine.

CONCLUSION

Because each study included in this review has its unique methodology and design, it is therefore early to conclude whether to use digital scanners for clinical practice or not. More well-conducted in vitro and clinical trials studies are recommended to investigate the accuracy of intraoral scanners.

Fully digital workflow, integrating dental scan, smile design and CAD-CAM: case report

Background

This report is a presentation of a clinical case that follows a full digital workflow.

Case presentation

A 47-year old man presented with pain in the TMJ (temporomandibular joint) and whose aesthetic concern was having a chipped maxillary central incisor veneer. The concern was solved following a fully digital workflow: it was applied the digital smile design protocol, as well as CAD-CAM monolithic lithium disilicate ceramic veneers and crowns (following a minimal invasive preparation approach). The aim of this rehabilitation was to solve a loss of vertical dimension, subsequent aesthetics and temporomandibular joint disorders.

Conclusion

Thanks to the evolution of technology in dentistry, it is possible to do a full digital case and solve problems such as loss of vertical dimension successfully. Nevertheless, more clinical studies are needed to obtain consistent results about the digital work flow compared to the conventional technique in loss of vertical dimension cases.

A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of a digital implant impression technique using a TRIOS 3Shape intraoral scanner (IOS) compared to conventional implant impression techniques (pick-up and transfer) in clinical situations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-six patients who had two implants (Implantium, internal connection) ranging in diameter between 3.8 and 4.8 mm in posterior regions participated in this study after signing a consent form. Thirty-six reference models (RM) were fabricated by attaching two impression copings intraorally, splinted with autopolymerizing acrylic resin, verified by sectioning through the middle of the index, and rejoined again with freshly mixed autopolymerizing acrylic resin pattern (Pattern Resin) with the brush bead method. After that, the splinted assemblies were attached to implant analogs (DANSE) and impressed with type III dental stone (Gypsum Microstone) in standard plastic die lock trays. Thirty-six working casts were fabricated for each conventional impression technique (i.e., pick-up and transfer). Thirty-six digital impressions were made with a TRIOS 3Shape IOS. Eight of the digitally scanned files were damaged; 28 digital scan files were retrieved to STL format. A coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) was used to record linear displacement measurements (x, y, and z-coordinates), interimplant distances, and angular displacements for the RMs and conventionally fabricated working casts. CATIA 3D evaluation software was used to assess the digital STL files for the same variables as the CMM measurements. CMM measurements made on the RMs and conventionally fabricated working casts were compared with 3D software measurements made on the digitally scanned files. Data were statistically analyzed using the generalized estimating equation (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation matrix and linear method, followed by the Bonferroni method for pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The results showed significant differences between the pick-up and digital groups in all of the measured variables (p < 0.001). Concerning the transfer and digital groups, the results were statistically significant in angular displacement (p < 0.001), distance measurements (p = 0.01), and linear displacement (p = 0.03); however, between the pick-up and transfer groups, there was no statistical significance in all of the measured variables (interimplant distance deviation, linear displacement, and angular displacement deviations).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of this study, the digital implant impression technique had the least accuracy. Based on the study outcomes, distance and angulation errors associated with the intraoral digital implant impressions were too large to fabricate well-fitting restorations for partially edentulous patients. The pick-up implant impression technique was the most accurate, and the transfer technique revealed comparable accuracy to it.

Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Until now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants.

METHODS

Two gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

In the PEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (45.8 ± 1.6μm), followed by Trios3® (50.2 ± 2.5μm), Omnicam® (58.8 ± 1.6μm) and TrueDefinition® (61.4 ± 3.0μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and Trios3®, CS3600® and Omnicam®, CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and Omnicam®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®. In the FEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (60.6 ± 11.7μm), followed by Omnicam® (66.4 ± 3.9μm), Trios3® (67.2 ± 6.9μm) and TrueDefinition® (106.4 ± 23.1μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®. For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM. In the PEM, TrueDefinition® had the best precision (19.5 ± 3.1μm), followed by Trios3® (24.5 ± 3.7μm), CS3600® (24.8 ± 4.6μm) and Omnicam® (26.3 ± 1.5μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. In the FEM, Trios3® had the best precision (31.5 ± 9.8μm), followed by Omnicam® (57.2 ± 9.1μm), CS3600® (65.5 ± 16.7μm) and TrueDefinition® (75.3 ± 43.8μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. For CS3600®, For CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no significant differences were found for Trios3®.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. These findings may have important clinical implications.