Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An in vitro study

Intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A narrative review

OBJECTIVES

To review the developments in intraoral scanner (IOS) technologies applied in implant prosthodontics, emphasizing their influence on the accuracy of digital impressions, occlusal registrations, and the fit of implant-supported restorations.

DATA

A collection of published articles related to implant prosthodontics, the accuracy of digital impressions, occlusal registration, and the fit of implant-supported fixed restorations.

SOURCES

Three search engines were selected: Medline/PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

A literature search screened relevant databases and journals for studies on IOS applications in digital implant prosthodontic workflows from Dec 2018 to Dec 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized control trials, clinical trials, case series, and in vitro research focused on the use of IOS in digital implant prosthodontics.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased utilization of digital dental technologies has led to significant integration of digital implant prosthodontic workflows into clinicians' clinical practice. Several variables affect the accuracy of digital impressions generated by IOS. Generally, the prevailing opinion in academic papers is that digital workflows are suitable for addressing short-span implant-supported restorations. However, when it comes to long-span defects, the accuracy of digital workflows is still a matter of debate. Digital bite registration is an integral part of the workflow. It depends mainly on the defect size and location, scan strategy, anatomical tooth variations, overbite and other factors. The overall fit of digitally prefabricated implant restorations comprises of proximal, occlusal contacts and how accurately the restoration connects with implants. Research methodologies need standardization for further validation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In clinical practice, it is essential to have a thorough and up-to-date comprehension of various factors that can affect the accuracy of digital impressions and the fit of the final prosthesis in implant prosthodontics.

Effect of a Novel 'Scan Body' on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions

OBJECTIVE

This in vitro study aimed to determine whether a newly designed arcuate scan body can improve intraoral scanning accuracy for implant rehabilitation of edentulous jaws.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A master model containing 4 implant abutment replicas was fabricated and digitized with different scan bodies using an intraoral scanner. Four types of scan bodies were evaluated: original scan bodies (group OS), computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) scan bodies without extension (group CS), CAD/CAM scan bodies with straight extension (group CSS), and CAD/CAM scan bodies with arcuate extension (group CSA). Conventional splinted open-tray impressions (group CI) were used as controls. The master model and the poured casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner. Impressions were repeated 10 times each in 5 groups. Scans in standard tessellation language format were exported to reverse engineering software and root mean square (RMS) values were used for trueness and precision assessments. In each group, 45 RMS values were acquired for precision evaluation and 10 RMS values were obtained for trueness assessment. Statistical evaluation was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn-Bonferroni test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The median trueness values were 41.40, 55.95, 39.80, 39.75, and 22.30 μm for group OS, CS, CSS, CSA, and CI, respectively. CI showed better trueness than OS (P = .020), CS (P < .001), and CSS (P = .035). The median precisions for group OS, CS, CSS, CSA, and CI were 47.40, 51.50, 43.90, 25.20, and 24.60 μm. respectively. The precision of CSA and CI were higher than OS (P < .001), CS (P < .001), and CSS (P < .001). Between CI and CSA, there was no significant difference (P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

For full-arch implant rehabilitation, the scan body with arcuate extension could improve the intraoral scanning precision and showed similar 3-dimensional discrepancy compared to conventional splinted open-tray impressions.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions using a novel structured light scanning system assisted by a planar mirror in the edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop a structured light scanning system with a planar mirror to enhance the digital full-arch implant impression accuracy and to compare it with photogrammetry and intraoral scanner methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary stone cast with six scan bodies was scanned as the reference model using a laboratory scanner. Three scanning modalities were compared (n = 10): (1) self-developed structured light scanning with a mirror (SSLS); (2) intraoral scanner (IOS); and (3) photogrammetry system (PG). The scanners were stopped for 1 min after each scan. Six scan bodies were analysed within each scan model. Linear deviations between the scan bodies (1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6) and 3D mucosal deviations were established. The overall deviation was calculated as the mean of all linear deviations. "Trueness" represented the discrepancy between the test and reference files, while "precision" denoted the consistency among the test files. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Significant overall linear discrepancies were noted among the SSLS, PG, and IOS groups (p < .001). SSLS showed the best overall trueness and precision (6.6, 5.7 μm), followed by PG (58.4, 6.8 μm) and IOS (214.6, 329.1 μm). For the 3D mucosal deviation, the trueness (p < .001) and precision (p < .001) of the SSLS group were significantly better than those of the IOS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The SSLS exhibited higher accuracy in determining the implant positions than the PG and IOS. Additionally, it demonstrated better accuracy in capturing the mucosa than IOS.

Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant-level conventional and digital impressions for atrophied maxillary ridges.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twelve participants with atrophied edentulous maxillary ridges received six implants. Six months later and after soft tissue maturation around healing abutments, a control cast was constructed using the final passive restoration for each patient. Two types of implant-level impression techniques were carried out for each patient: (1) conventional (splinted open-tray) impression technique and (2) digital impression technique. For both techniques, scan bodies were labeled from the most distal implant on the left side (A, B, C, D, E, and F) and scanning was made. Accuracy of both techniques was measured using in vitro (two-dimensional and three-dimensional) and in vivo (clinical) methods. Two-dimensional methods include measurement of the difference in linear distances AB, AC AD, AE, and AF. Geomagic software was used to assess the three-dimensional deviation between the two impression techniques using the superimposition of standard tessellation language files. The incidence and percentage of nonpassive frameworks and framework misfits of final restorations for both types of impression techniques were assessed using the single screw test.

RESULTS

For all distances, digital impressions recorded significantly higher deviation from control measurements than conventional impressions. The highest two-dimensional linear deviation was noted for AF distance and the lowest difference was noted for AB distance. For all scan bodies, digital impressions recorded significantly higher three-dimensional deviation than conventional impressions. The highest three-dimensional deviation was noted with scan bodies C and D. Digital impressions recorded a significantly higher incidence of nonpassive frameworks and framework misfits than conventional impressions. [Correction added on 11 June 2024, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, "digital impressions" was changed to "conventional impressions" in this version.] CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that the conventional implant-level impression technique showed greater in vitro and in vivo accuracy than the digital impression technique when used for full-arch maxillary fixed restorations on inclined implants.

Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Studies are sparse on how splinting scan bodies or incorporating 3-dimensionally (3D) printed scan aids influence the trueness of complete arch digital scans.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of multisite implant recordings obtained using 6 different methods on an edentulous mandible.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A definitive cast of an edentulous mandible with 4 multi-unit analogs placed at different angles and interanalog distances was extraorally scanned, and the resulting data were saved as a reference file. To obtain experimental files, 6 distinct methods were used: conventional impression with splinted open-tray impression copings (IC), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting scan bodies or using any scan aids (SB), IOS with pattern resin-splinted scan bodies (PR), IOS with composite resin-splinted scan bodies (CR), IOS with 3D printed custom scan bodies (CSB), and IOS with 3D printed auxiliary apparatus (AA). The experimental files were aligned to the reference file in a metrology software program. The 3D comparison algorithm was run to quantify the root mean square estimate error (RMS). Scan bodies in the files were converted to hollow virtual cylinders, and the Cartesian coordinates of the lines passing through the centers of these cylinders were recorded to analyze angular (AD) and linear distortion (LD). LD was further analyzed along the x (∆X), y (∆Y), and z axes (∆Z). One-way ANOVAs with the Tukey HSD test were used for statistical analysis (α=.05).

RESULTS

AD at all sites, LD at all sites, and the RMS error showed significant differences (P<.05). The IC group showed the lowest AD values across all sites, followed by the AA, CSB, PR, CR, and SB groups. The SB group had the greatest LD values at all sites, while the IC group indicated the lowest LD values at all sites except the left anterior site. In terms of 3D distortions, the SB group had the largest RMS value, whereas the IC group showed the lowest RMS value. ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values also showed significant differences at all sites (P<.001) except for the ∆Z values at the right anterior site (P=.194). The highest mean ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values were recorded in the SB group except for the ∆Z measurement of the left posterior site.

CONCLUSIONS

The IC group outperformed the other groups. The AA group exhibited distortion comparable with that of the IC group. Splinting scan bodies or using scan aids enhanced the trueness.

Effect of different impression coping and scan body designs on the accuracy of conventional versus digital implant impressions: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study compared the accuracy of conventional versus digital impression techniques for angulated and straight implants using two different impression coping and scan body designs.

METHODS

Two implant systems were used: Straumann and Dentegris. Two implants were placed for each system, straight and angulated at 15 degrees mesiodistally. Conventional impressions were made using the splinted open-tray technique using narrow impression coping (NIC) and wide impression coping (WIC). The stone casts produced from the conventional impression were digitized with a lab scanner (3Shape D2000). Digital impressions were made using four intraoral scanners (IOS): 3Shape Trios 3, Medit i700, Cerec Omnicam, and Emerald Planmeca using short scanbodies (SSB) and long scanbodies (LSB). The scanning was repeated ten times to generate the Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The distance and angle deviations between impression copings and scanbodies were measured in reference to the master model.

RESULTS

The trueness and precision of SSB and WIC were significantly better than LSB and NIC (p<0.001). The range trueness of the platform deviation was better with SSB (37.1 to 51.9) than LSB (89.6 to 127.9 μm) and for WIC than NIC in conventional impressions (58.2 and 75.1 μm, respectively). The trueness of the angle deviation of digital scans with SSB (0.11 to 0.25 degrees) was significantly better than scans with LSB (0.31 to 0.57 degrees) and for WIC than NIC (0.21 and 0.52 degrees, respectively). The precision of the platform deviation of digital scans with SSB (12.4 to 34.5 μm) was higher than other scans and conventional impressions (42.9 to 71.4 μm). The precision of the angle deviation of Medit i700 and Trios 3 with SSB (0.17 and 0.20 degrees, respectively) was higher than other scans with SSB and conventional impressions (0.54 to 1.63 degrees).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital scans with SSB were more accurate than conventional splinted open-tray impressions. The type of impression coping and scanbody significantly affected the impression accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The use of a short scanbody can increase the accuracy of digital impressions, and wide impression coping can increase the accuracy of conventional impressions, resulting in improved clinical outcomes.

Research progress on accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for implant-supported full-arch prostheses

With the rapid development of implant techniques and digital technology, digital impressions have become a commonly used impression method in implant restoration. At present, the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions directly applied to implant-supported full-arch prostheses remains inadequate, which is due to the high accuracy requirement of full-arch implant impressions, while there are still technical challenges in intraoral digital impressions about recognition and stitching. In this regard, scholars have proposed a variety of scanning strategies to improve the accuracy of intraoral scan, including mucosal modifications, auxiliary devices and novel scan bodies. At the same time photogrammetry, as a new digital impression technique, has been developing steadily and exhibits promising accuracy. This article reviews the research progress on the accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impressions and techniques which can improve the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions, to provide reference for clinical application.

Scan accuracy and time efficiency of different implant-supported fixed partial denture situations depending on the intraoral scanner and scanned area: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The type of intraoral scanner (IOS), region of the implant, and extent of the scanned area have been reported to affect scan accuracy. However, knowledge of the accuracy of IOSs is scarce when digitizing different partially edentulous situations either with complete or partial arch scans.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the scan accuracy and time efficiency of complete and partial arch scans of different partially edentulous situations with 2 implants and 2 different IOSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three maxillary models with implant spaces at the lateral incisor sites (anterior 4-unit), right first premolar and right first molar sites (posterior 3-unit), or right canine and right first molar sites (posterior 4-unit) were fabricated. After placing implants (Straumann S RN) and scan bodies (CARES Mono Scanbody), models were digitized by using an optical scanner (ATOS Capsule 200MV120) to generate reference standard tessellation language (STL) files. Complete or partial arch scans (test scans) of each model were then performed by using 2 IOSs (Primescan [PS] and TRIOS 3 [T3]) (n=14). The duration of the scans and the time needed to postprocess the STL file until the design could be started were also recorded. A metrology-grade analysis software program (GOM Inspect 2018) was used to superimpose test scan STLs over the reference STL to calculate 3D distance, interimplant distance, and angular (mesiodistal and buccopalatal) deviations. Nonparametric 2-way analysis of variance followed by Mann-Whitney tests with Holm correction were used for trueness, precision, and time efficiency analyses (α=.05).

RESULTS

The interaction between IOSs and scanned area only affected the precision of the scans when angular deviation data were considered (P≤.002). Trueness of the scans was affected by IOSs when 3D distance, interimplant distance, and mesiodistal angular deviations were considered. The scanned area affected only 3D distance deviations (P≤.006). IOSs and scanned area significantly affected the precision of scans when 3D distance, interimplant distance, and mesiodistal angular deviations were considered, while only IOSs significantly affected buccopalatal angular deviations (P≤.040). Scans from PS had higher accuracy when 3D distance deviations were considered for the anterior 4-unit and posterior 3-unit models (P≤.030), when interimplant distance deviations were considered for complete arch scans of the posterior 3-unit model (P≤.048), and when mesiodistal angular deviations were considered in the posterior 3-unit model (P≤.050). Partial arch scans had higher accuracy when 3D distance deviations of the posterior 3-unit model were considered (P≤.002). PS had higher time efficiency regardless of the model and scanned area (P≤.010), while partial arch scans had higher time efficiency when scanning the posterior 3-unit and posterior 4-unit models with PS and the posterior 3-unit model with T3 (P≤.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Partial arch scans with PS had similar or better accuracy and time efficiency than other tested scanned area-scanner pairs in tested partial edentulism situations.

Influence of Implant Adjacent Teeth on the Accuracy of Digital Impression

OBJECTIVE

 The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth patterns on the accuracy of digital scans of parallel and divergent implants for three-unit prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A maxillary typodont model with implants in the locations of the first premolars and first molars was used to develop three clinical scenarios for three-unit prostheses: (S1) Partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars and first molars only; (S2) partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars, second premolars and first molars; and (S3) partially edentulous arch with missing canines, first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars. On one side, the implants were parallel, and for the other side, the implants had a 15-degree buccolingual angle. With the aid of scan bodies, 10 digital impressions were taken for each scenario and for each side. To evaluate the accuracy, a reverse engineering software was used to measure trueness, precision, and interimplant distance.

RESULTS

 The best trueness for parallel implants was observed for S2 (30.0 µm), followed by S3 (67.3 µm) and S1 (74.8 µm) (p < 0.001). Likewise, S2 had the best precision for parallel implants (31.3 µm) followed by S3 (38.0 µm) and S1 (70.3 µm) (p < 0.001). For the divergent implants, S2 exhibited the best trueness (23.1 µm), followed by S3 (48.2 µm) and S1 (59.4 µm) (p = 0.007). Similarly, the S2 had the best precision (12.3 µm) followed by S3 (62.1 µm) and S1 (66.9 µm) (p < 0.001). The S2 had the least interimplant distance deviation followed by S1 and S3. The difference was significant for parallel implants (p = 0.03), but insignificant for divergent implants (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

 Regardless of the presenting scenario, digital implant impressions for three-unit prostheses appear to be clinically accurate. A clear interimplant area between scan bodies enhanced the accuracy of digital impressions. This observation can be attributed to more accessible axial surface scanning of the scan body.

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

PURPOSE

To report the means to maximize the predictability and accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans through the evaluation of operator and patient-related factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of published articles related to factors that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans was completed in four data sources:MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science. All studies related to variables that can influence the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs) were considered. These variables included ambient lighting, scanning pattern, implant scan body (ISB) design, techniques for splinting ISBs, arch location, implant position, and inter-implant distance.

RESULTS

Among operator-related factors, ambient lighting conditions, scanning pattern, and ISB design (material, geometry, and retention design) can impact the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal ISB for maximizing IOS accuracy is unclear; however, polymer ISB can wear with multiple reuse and sterilization methods. Among patient-related factors, additional variables should be considered, namely arch (maxillary vs. mandibular arch), implant position in the arch, inter-implant distance, implant depth, and angulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambient lighting conditions should be established based on the IOS selected to optimize the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal scanning pattern may vary based on the IOS, clinical situation, and the number of implants. The optimal ISB design may vary depending on the IOS used. Metallic implant scan bodies are preferred over polymer ISB designs to minimize wear due to multiple use and sterilization distortion. Among patient-related factors, additional variables should be considered namely the arch scanned, implant position in the arch, inter-implant distance, implant depth, and angulation. The impact of these factors may vary depending on the IOS selected.

Accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of stereophotogrammetry systems for acquiring 3D dental implant positions: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the use of commercially available PG systems were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 14 articles were included: 3 in vivo, 6 in vitro, and 6 case report manuscripts. One clinical study evaluated trueness, another one tested precision, and the third one assessed impression time and patient and operator satisfaction. All the in vitro studies evaluated the trueness and precision of a PG system. Additionally, all the reviewed studies investigated completely edentulous conditions with multiple implants. The number of placed implants per arch among the reviewed clinical studies varied from 4 to 8 implants, while the number of implants placed on the reference casts included 4, 5, 6, or 8 implants. Not all the studies compared the accuracy of PG systems with conventional impression methods, using intraoral scanners as additional experimental groups. For the PIC system, trueness ranged from 10 to 49 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 65 μm. For the iCam4D system, trueness ranged from 24 to 77 μm and the precision value ranged from 2 to 203 μm.

CONCLUSIONS

PG systems may provide a reliable alternative for acquiring the 3D position of dental implants. However, this conclusion should be interpreted carefully, as one study reported a mean precision value of one PG system higher than the clinically acceptable discrepancy. Lower scanning time and higher patient and operator satisfaction have been reported when compared with conventional techniques. Further studies are needed to increase the evidence regarding the accuracy, scanning time, and patient and operator satisfaction of the commercially available PG systems.

Characteristics of intraoral scan bodies and their influence on impression accuracy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the characteristics of intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy of intraoral scanning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library, up to March 2023. The literature search intended to retrieve all relevant clinical and in vitro studies about the effect that the various properties of ISBs may have on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanning. Only publications in English language were selected with animal studies, case reports, case series, technique presentation articles and expert opinions being excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. They were published between 2019 and 2023 and were all in vitro studies. Among the parameters described, the scan body material, position, geometry, height, diameter, and fixation torque were evaluated. The most common materials used for ISBs were polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium alloys. The diameter and position of ISBs seemed to affect the trueness of implant impressions. Subgingival implant position and decreased ISB height affected negatively the trueness of scanning. Geometrical characteristics of ISBs also affect the implant impression accuracy, especially the bevel location and the types of designing modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of the currently used ISBs vary widely and the available scientific evidence is not yet conclusive about the optimal design of ISB. The implant impression accuracy achieved by any of the studied parameters is encouraging. Clinical studies are however necessary for more concrete conclusions.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

ISBs play a vital role in the digital workflow and influence significantly the accuracy and fit of implant restorations. More clinical trials are needed in order to conclude to the optimal characteristics of ISBs which would further enhance the success of the restorations.

A Comprehensive Review of Factors That Influence the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have become increasingly popular in the field of dentistry for capturing accurate digital impressions of patients' teeth and oral structures. This study investigates the various factors influencing their accuracy. An extensive search of scholarly literature was carried out via PubMed, utilizing appropriate keywords. Factors evaluated in the included studies were categorized into three primary divisions: those related to the operator, the patient, and the IOS itself. The analysis demonstrated that the accuracy of intraoral scanning is influenced by various factors such as scanner selection, operator skill, calibration, patient's oral anatomy, ambient conditions, and scanning aids. Maintaining updated software and understanding factors beyond scanner resolution are crucial for optimal accuracy. Conversely, smaller IOS tips, fast scanning speeds, and specific scanning patterns compromise the accuracy and precision. By understanding these factors, dental professionals can make more informed decisions and enhance the accuracy of IOSs, leading to improved final dental restorations.

Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the accuracy of digital implant impressions with or without prefabricated landmarks compared with the conventional method in the edentulous mandible.

METHODS

An edentulous mandibular stone cast with implant abutment analogs and scan bodies in FDI #46, 43, 33, and 36 served as the master model. Intraoral scanner groups (IOS) were divided into four subgroups: IOS-NT (no landmarks + Trios 4 scanner), IOS-NA (no landmarks + Aoralscan 3 scanner), IOS-YT (landmarks + Trios 4 scanner), and IOS-YA (landmarks + Aoralscan 3 scanner) (n=10). Landmarks were attached to the scan bodies with resin to improve scanning fluency. Conventional open-trayed technique (CNV) was performed with the 3D-printed splinting frameworks (n=10). The master model and conventional castings were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the former served as the reference model. Overall distance and angle deviations between scan bodies were measured to determine trueness and precision. The ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test compared CNV group to scans without landmarks, while a generalized linear model analyzed scan groups with and without landmarks.

RESULTS

Compared to the CNV group, the IOS-NA and IOS-NT groups showed higher overall distance trueness (p=.009), and precision (distance, p<.001 and angular, p<.001). With landmarks, the IOS-YA group had higher overall trueness (distance, p<.001 and angular, p<.001) than the IOS-NA group, and the IOS-YT group has higher distance trueness (p=.041) than the IOS-NT group. Moreover, the precision in distance and angle was significantly improved for IOS-YA and IOS-YT groups, compared with the IOS-NA (p<.001) and IOS-NT (p<.001) groups separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital scans were more accurate than conventional splinting open-trayed impressions. Prefabricated landmarks significantly improved the accuracy of full-arch implant digital scans, regardless of the scanner used.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Prefabricated landmarks can enhance the accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch implant rehabilitation, improving scanning efficiency and clinical outcomes.

Effect of inter-dental abutment distance on the impression accuracy of digital and conventional methods

This study aimed to examine the effect of inter-dental abutment distance on the accuracy of digital and conventional impression methods. Five maxillary and mandibular models were prepared with different inter-dental abutment distances. Digital scans were obtained using an extraoral laboratory scanner as reference data. Each group was scanned 8 times using the intra-oral scanner for the digital method. For the conventional impression method, 8 additional silicone impression material was used to generate the stone casts from each group. Then casts were scanned. In the next step, stereolithography (STL) data was exported from the scans. The STL files were super-imposed on the reference scans using 3shape dental designer software to make the measurement. Kolmogorov-Smirnoff was used to determine if the data were normally distributed. In the digital impression method, as the abutment distance increased, the accuracy decreased. Various inter-dental abutment distances in digital groups showed significant differences (p=0.016) in impression accuracy, while the difference among conventional groups was not statistically significant (p=0.822). In the digital method, the mean inter-dental abutment between the 4-5 and 3-7 groups, 4-6 and 3-7 groups had a significant difference (p<0.05). However, the conventional method revealed no significant differences (p>0.05) between groups. In conclusion, when the inter-dental abutment distance exists and is surrounded by soft tissue, the possibility of error in the digital impression method is higher than in the conventional impression method.

Effect of intraoral scanner and fixed partial denture situation on the scan accuracy of multiple implants: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Accuracy of intraoral implant scans may be affected by the region of the implant and the type of the intraoral scanner (IOSs). However, there is limited knowledge on the scan accuracy of multiple implants placed for an implant-supported fixed partial denture (FPD) in different partially edentulous situations when digitized by using different IOSs.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of IOS and FPD situation on the scan accuracy of two implants when partial-arch scans were performed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tissue level implants were placed in 3 maxillary models with implant spaces either at right first premolar and right first molar sites (Model 1, 3-unit FPD), at right canine and right first molar sites (Model 2, 4-unit FPD), or at lateral incisor sites (Model 3, 4-unit FPD). Reference standard tessellation language (STL) files of the models were generated by using an optical scanner (ATOS Capsule 200MV120). Two IOSs (CEREC Primescan [CP] and TRIOS 3 [TR]) were used to perform partial-arch scans (test-scans) of each model (n = 14), which were exported in STL format. A metrology-grade analysis software (GOM Inspect 2018) was used to superimpose test-scan STLs over the reference STL to calculate 3D distance, inter-implant distance, and angular (mesiodistal and buccopalatal) deviations. Trueness and precision analyses were performed by using bootstrap analysis of variance followed by Welch tests with Holm correction (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Trueness of the scans was affected by IOS and FPD situation when 3D distance deviations were considered, while inter-implant distance, mesiodistal angular, and buccopalatal angular deviations were only affected by the FPD situation (p < 0.001). Scan precision was affected by the interaction between the IOSs and the FPD situation when 3D distance and buccopalatal angular deviations were concerned, while IOSs and FPD situation were effective when all deviations were concerned (p≤ 0.001). When 3D distance deviations were considered, CP scans had higher accuracy TR scans in Models 1 and 3 (p ≤ 0.002), and the Model 1 scans had the highest accuracy (p < 0.001). When inter-implant distance deviations were considered, Model 1 scans had the highest accuracy with CP and higher accuracy than Model 2 when TR was used (p ≤ 0.030). When mesiodistal angular deviations were considered, Model 1 scans had the highest accuracy (p ≤ 0.040). When buccopalatal angular deviations were considered, Model 1 scans had the highest accuracy among models when CP was used (p ≤ 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior 3-unit fixed partial denture implant scans, CP scans, and combination of these two factors had accuracy either similar to or better than their tested counterparts.

In vitro scan accuracy and time efficiency in various implant-supported fixed partial denture situations

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy and time efficiency of different digital workflows in 3 implant-supported fixed partial denture situations.

METHODS

Three partially edentulous maxillary models with 2 implants (Model 1: implants at lateral incisor sites; Model 2: implants at right canine and first molar sites; Model 3: implants at right first premolar and first molar sites) were digitized (ATOS Capsule 200MV120, n=1) for reference scans. Test scans were performed for direct (Primescan (DDW-P) and Trios 3 (DDW-T)) and indirect (IDW) digital workflows (n=14). For IDW, stone casts (type IV) were obtained from vinylsiloxanether impressions and digitized (S600 Arti). The scan/impression and post processing times were recorded. Reference and test scans were superimposed (GOM Inspect) to calculate 3D point, inter-implant distance, and angular deviations. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for trueness and precision analyses (α=.05).

RESULTS

Tested workflows affected trueness (P≤.030) and precision (P<.001) of scans (3D point, inter-implant distance, and angular deviations) within models. DDW-P had the highest accuracy (3D point deviations) for models 1 and 3 (P≤.046). IDW had the lowest accuracy for model 2 (P<.01). DDW-P had the highest accuracy (inter-implant distance deviations) for model 3 (P≤.048). Direct digital workflow mostly led to lower angular deviations (P≤.040), and higher precision for models 2 (mesiodistal direction) and 3 (P<.001). The time for direct digital workflow was shorter (P<.001), DDW-P being more efficient than DDW-T (P=.008).

CONCLUSION

Direct digital workflow was more accurate and efficient than indirect digital workflow in tested partial edentulism situations with 2 implants.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested intraoral scanners can be recommended for accurate and efficient impressions of anterior and posterior 3- or 4-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures.

Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of four types of artificial landmarks and three different scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans.

METHODS

An edentulous mandibular model with 4 dental implants (Osstem) was prepared as the master reference model (MRM) and scanned with laboratory scanner (E4 Lab Scanner®). Then, the model was modified with four artificial landmarks: (i) CON- unmodified MRM, (ii) PIP- pressure-indicating paste brushed over the edentulous ridge, (iii) LD- liquid dam markers placed on the edentulous ridge, and (iv) FL- floss tied with pattern resin between the scan bodies. In each group, the modified model was scanned with three different scanning patterns: (i) LB- linguo-buccal pattern, (ii) SS- s-shaped pattern, and (iii) QU- quadrant pattern (n = 10/subgroup) using an intraoral scanner (Trios®4). Scans in STL format were exported and superimposed with MRM file using an inspection software (Geomagic Control X). Accuracy (trueness and precision) was evaluated by calculating the deviation, root mean square (RMS). Results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences in accuracy values were found across different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns as the LD artificial landmark with QU pattern showed the highest accuracy. The lowest accuracy was recorded in CON with LB pattern, PIP artificial landmark with LB pattern, and FL artificial landmark with SS pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

The artificial landmarks and scanning patterns had a significant effect on the accuracy of the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

When performing complete-arch digital scans with four dental implants, clinicians should select proper artificial landmark and scanning pattern, as the artificial landmark and scanning pattern significantly affect the accuracy of the scan when using an intraoral scanner. ®.

Assessing the Effect of Interimplant Distance and Angle on Different Impression Techniques

We aimed to evaluate the trueness of digital and conventional impression techniques based on different angles and distances between implants and the deviation caused by the angle and distance parameters varying between implants. Eight implants were placed in a polyurethane edentulous mandibular model at different angles and distances. After obtaining a 3-dimensional (3D) reference model by using an optical scanner, the model was scanned with three intraoral scanners: Cerec Omnicam (DO), Trios 3 (DT), and Carestream 3500 (DC). Then, the master casts obtained from the conventional impressions (C) were also digitized, and all impression data were imported into reverse engineering software to be compared with the 3D reference model. Distance and angle measurements between adjacent implants were performed, and the data were analyzed with ANOVA–Tukey and Kruskal Wallis tests. The significance level was accepted as p < 0.05. While DT and C groups gave the best results for high interimplant distances, the trueness of intraoral scanners was found to be superior to the conventional method between closer implants. At higher angulations, the angular trueness of C group was found to be significantly lower. At short distances, digital groups showed superiority, and the trueness of conventional impression decreased with higher angulations.