Effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans using a combined healing abutment-scan body system

A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific focus on scan bodies (ISBs).

METHODS

Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study conducted a thorough electronic search across MedLine, PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance. The Robins I tool assessed the risk of bias in various study types. Data extraction occurred based on predetermined parameters for studying specimens and assessing outcomes.

RESULTS

16 studies met the specified criteria and were consequently included in the systematic review. Due to variations in variables and methods across the selected studies, statistical comparison of results was not feasible. Therefore, a descriptive review approach was chosen, acknowledging the substantial heterogeneity in the reviewed literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The precision of virtual scan results is contingent upon diverse characteristics of ISBs and implants. These factors encompass their placement within the dental arch, structural design, shape, material composition, color, and the manufacturing system, all of which contribute to scan accuracy. Additionally, considerations such as the intraoral scanner (IOS) type, scanning technique, use of scan aids, inter-implant distance, scan span, and the number of implants warrant evaluation. In the context of capturing implant positions, intraoral scanning with ISBs demonstrates comparable accuracy to traditional impression methods, particularly in single and short-span scenarios. However, the existing data lacks sufficient information on in vivo applications to formulate clinical recommendations.

Single posterior implant-supported restorations fabricated using a scannable healing abutment versus a conventional scan body: A randomized controlled trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The use of a scannable healing abutment is a convenient option for fabricating implant-supported restorations (ISRs) with a digital workflow; however, clinical studies evaluating prosthetic efficacy are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to investigate the prosthetic efficacy of definitive posterior single ISRs fabricated after scanning using a scannable healing abutment-scan peg (SHA-SP) in comparison with a conventional scan body (CSB). The time for data acquisition, quality of proximal and occlusal contacts, and relative occlusal force of ISRs were measured.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-four participants eligible for single ISRs to replace the mandibular first molar with adjacent and antagonist teeth present were randomly allocated to either a study group (n=12) receiving ISRs after intraoral scanning using an SHA-SP or a control group (n=12) receiving ISRs after intraoral scanning using CSB. During the surgical procedure, a prefabricated contoured scannable healing abutment was screwed to the implant in the SHA-SP group, while a custom-made healing abutment was used in the CSB group. After a healing period of 3 months, an intraoral scan was made, and the duration of data acquisition was recorded. The ISRs were milled from zirconia and evaluated for the quality of proximal and occlusal contacts using dental floss and shim stock, respectively. The relative occlusal forces of the ISRs and their contralateral natural teeth were measured using a digital occlusal analyzer. Statistical analysis was done using an independent sample t test for quantitative variables and a Pearson chi-squared test for qualitative variables between the tested groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

The direct digital workflow using SHA-SP was statistically less time consuming than the CSB (P<.001). The 2 groups were statistically similar regarding the quality of the proximal contacts (P=.281) or occlusal contacts (P=.307) and the relative occlusal forces of ISRs (P=.315). The relative occlusal forces of the ISRs in both groups were significantly lower than those of their contralateral natural teeth (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Direct digital workflow using SHA-SP was more rapid, saving clinical chairside time, and produced proximal and occlusal contacts of comparable quality with those obtained with CSB. The relative occlusal forces of ISRs in both workflows were lower than their contralateral natural teeth.

Influence of age, training, intraoral scanner, and software version on the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of operator age on the scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of inexperienced operators when compared with experienced operators, and how training, intraoral scanner (IOS), and software version affect scan accuracy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-four operators were sorted into groups: G1 (operators <25 years old, no experience), G2 (operators >40 years old, no experience), and G3 (experienced IOS operators). They conducted partial-arch scans before and after a 4-session training with two IOSs (Trios 3 and True Definition) and two software versions. These scans were compared with the reference scans obtained from conventional impressions and a laboratory scanner (IScan D103i) to evaluate trueness (mean root mean square values) and precision (standard deviation of root mean square values) with a software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn's tests were used to evaluate the effect of age on the scan accuracy of inexperienced groups when compared with experienced operators, while the effect of training, IOS, and software version on scan accuracy was evaluated with Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Before training, G1 and G2 scans had similar accuracy (p ≥ 0.065). After training, G1 scans had higher accuracy when IOS data was pooled and had higher precision with TD (p ≤ 0.004). Training increased the scan accuracy (p < 0.001), while newer software increased the trueness of inexperienced operator scans (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Age affected the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators after training, indicating that extended training may be required for older operators. Training increased the scan accuracy, and newer software increased the trueness of inexperienced operator scans.

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.

Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment scan body system scans at different sites of maxilla after multiple repositioning of the scan body

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of the scans of the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system located at different sites of the maxilla when SBs are replaced in between each scan.

METHODS

Three SBs were seated into HAs located at the central incisor, first premolar, and first molar sites of a maxillary model inside a phantom head, and the model was scanned extraorally (CEREC Primescan SW 5.2). This procedure was repeated with new SBs until a total of 10 scans were performed. Standard tessellation language files of CHA-SBs at each implant location were isolated, transferred into analysis software (Geomagic Control X), and superimposed over the proprietary library files to analyze surface (root mean square), linear, and angular deviations. Trueness and precision were evaluated with one-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests. The correlation between surface and angular deviations was analyzed with Pearson's correlation (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Molar implant scans had the highest surface and angular deviations (P≤.006), while central incisor implant scans had higher precision (surface deviations) than premolar implant scans (P=.041). Premolar implant scans had higher accuracy than central incisor implant scans on the y-axis (P≤.029). Central incisor implant scans had the highest accuracy on the z-axis (P≤.018). A strong positive correlation was observed between surface and angular deviations (r = 0.864, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Central incisor implant scans mostly had high accuracy and molar implant scans mostly had lower trueness. SBs were mostly positioned apically; however, the effect of SB replacement can be considered small as measured deviations were similar to those in previous studies and the precision of scans was high.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Repositioning of scan bodies into healing abutments would be expected to result in similar single crown positioning regardless of the location of the implant, considering high scan precision with the healing abutment-scan body system. The duration of the chairside adjustments of crowns in the posterior maxilla may be longer than those in the anterior region.

Trueness and precision of mandibular complete-arch implant scans when different data acquisition methods are used

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of different data acquisition methods on the trueness and precision of mandibular complete-arch implant scans.

METHODS

An edentulous polyurethane master mandibular model with 6 implants was digitized by using an industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80 5MP) to obtain a master standard tessellation language (MSTL) file. The master model was also digitized by using either direct digital workflow with a stereoscopic camera (iCam 4D (IM)) or intraoral scanners (CEREC Primescan (PS) and Trios 4 (T4)) or indirect digital workflow with laboratory scanners (inEos X5 (X5) and CARES 7 (S7)) to obtain test-scan STLs (n = 10). All STL files were imported into a metrology-grade analysis software (Geomagic Control X 2020.1) and test-scan STLs were superimposed over MSTL. The root mean square method was used to calculate surface deviations, while angular deviations were also calculated. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests were used to evaluate measured deviations (surface and angular) for trueness and precision (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

X5 and S7 had the lowest, and IM had the highest surface deviations (P ≤ .036). The angular deviations of PS were lower than those of X5, S7, and IM (P ≤ .008). When surface deviations were considered, T4 had the lowest precision among tested scanners (P ≤ .002), and the scans of IM had higher precision than those of PS (P = .003). Scanner type did not affect the precision of the scans when angular deviations were considered (P = .084).

CONCLUSIONS

The data acquisition method affected the trueness (surface and angular deviations) and precision (surface deviations) of mandibular complete-arch implant scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested data acquisition methods may be feasible to digitize mandibular complete-arch implants considering the deviations of the scans, which were in the range of previously reported thresholds, and the high precision of scans. However, the frameworks fabricated with the direct digital workflow that involves the scans of the stereoscopic camera might require more adjustments than those fabricated by using the scans of other tested scanners.

Positional transfer accuracy of titanium base implant abutment provided by two different scan body designs: an invitro study

BACKGROUND

The variabilities in design and material of scan bodies have a major role in the positional transfer accuracy of implants. The purpose of this invitro study was to compare the 3D transfer accuracy (trueness and precision) of titanium base (TB) abutment position provided by 2 different scan bodies: one-piece scan body (SB) in comparison to two-piece healing abutment and scan peg (HA-SP).

METHODS

A maxillary model with a dummy implant in the 2nd premolar (Proactive Tapered Implant; Neoss) was 3D printed and TB (Ti Neolink Mono; Neoss) was tightened on the implant and scanned by using a laboratory scanner (inEos X5; Dentsply Sirona) (reference scan). An SB (Elos Medtech) and an HA-SP (Neoss) were subsequently connected to the implant and were scanned 10 times each by using the same scanner (test scans). All the scans were exported as STL files and imported into CAD software where the TBs were formed. Test scans were superimposed on reference scans for transfer accuracy analysis using 3D metrology software (GOM Inspect; GOM GmbH) in terms of angular deviation in vertical and horizontal directions, linear deviation in each XYZ axis of TBs and total linear deviation in all axes. Statistical analysis was done using independent sample t test. When Levene's test for equality of variances was significant, Welch's t-test was used. (P value < 0.05) RESULTS: Significant differences were found amongst the tested groups in both angular and linear deviation in terms of trueness with less deviation values for the SB group (P < 0.001). For the precision, significant differences were found amongst the tested groups in angular deviation in vertical direction with less deviation value for the SB group compared to HA-SP group (P < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between the tested groups regarding the angular deviation in horizontal direction (P = 1.000). Moreover, significant differences were found amongst the tested groups in linear deviations with less linear deviations in XYZ axes for SB compared to HA-SP group (P = 0.020, < 0.001, = 0.010 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

SB showed less angular and linear deviation values in the 3D positional transfer of TB than HA-SP indicating higher degree of accuracy of SB.

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.

Effect of measurement techniques and operators on measured deviations in digital implant scans

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of different measurement techniques and operators on measured deviations in vitro implant scans.

METHODS

A 2-piece system that comprises a healing abutment (HA) and a scan body (SB) was mounted onto an implant at right first molar site of a polymethylmethacrylate mandibular dentate model. Model was digitized by using an industrial scanner (reference model scan, n = 1) and an intraoral scanner (test scan, n = 20). All standard tessellation language files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software and superimposed. Three operators with similar experience performed circle-based and point-based deviation analyses (n = 20). Deviations measured with different techniques were compared with paired samples t-test within each operator, while the reliability of the operators was assessed by using F-tests for both technqiues (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Point-based technique resulted in lower deviations than circle-based technique for all operators (P = .001) with to higher reliability among operators (ICC = 0.438, P = .001). The correlation among the operators was nonsignificant when circle-based technique was used (ICC = 0.114, P = .189).

CONCLUSION

Lower deviations were detected with the point-based technique. In addition, different operators' measurements had higher correlation when point-based technique was used compared with circle-based technique.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Point-based technique may be preferred over circle-based technique for research studies on scan accuracy of implants, given its higher reliability. The accuracy of measured deviations may increase if the number of planes are increased, which can facilitate point generation at different surfaces of the scan body.

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.

Effect of Scanned Area and Operator on the Accuracy of Dentate Arch Scans with a Single Implant

Studies have shown the effect of the operator and scanned areas on the accuracy of single implant scans. However, the knowledge on the scan accuracy of the remaining dental arch during single implant scans, which may affect the occlusion, is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of scanned areas and the operator on the scan accuracy of a dentate arch while scanning a single implant. A dentate model with an anterior implant was digitized with a laboratory scanner (reference scan). Three operators with similar experience performed 10 complete- and 10 partial-arch scans (left 2nd molar to right canine) with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3), and these scans were superimposed over the reference. The accuracy was analyzed at 22 points in complete-arch and at 16 points in partial-arch scans on 2nd molars and incisors. Data were evaluated with 2-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (α = 0.05). The trueness of the total scanned area was higher in partial- than in complete-arch scans (p < 0.001). The trueness and precision of the scans were higher in the anterior site compared with the posterior in complete- (trueness: p ≤ 0.022, precision: p ≤ 0.003) and partial-arch (trueness: p ≤ 0.016, precision: p ≤ 0.016) scans of each operator and when the operator scan data were pooled. The complete-arch scan’s precision was not influenced by the operator (p ≥ 0.029), whereas the partial-arch scans of operator 1 and 2 were significantly different (p = 0.036). Trueness was higher in partial- compared with complete-arch scans, but their precision was similar. Accuracy was higher in the anterior site regardless of the scan being a partial- or a complete-arch. The operator’s effect on the accuracy of partial- and complete-arch scans was small.

Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment-scan body system depending on the scan pattern and implant location: an in-vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To test the effect of scan pattern and the location of the implant on the trueness and precision of implant scans when the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system is used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A partially edentulous maxillary model with CHA-SBs secured on implants at 3 different sites in the left quadrant (central incisor, first premolar, and first molar) was fabricated. The model was scanned with an industrial light scanner to generate a master reference model (MRM) file. An intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) was used to perform the test scans (n=8) with 4 different scan patterns (SP1, SP2, SP3, and SP4) with an intraoral scanner. The test scans were superimposed over the MRM file with a metrology software to calculate the distance deviations of the CHA-SB system. Data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests for accuracy (α=.05).

RESULTS

Trueness (P=.001) and precision (P=.018) were significantly affected by the interaction between the scan pattern and implant location. The implant located at the central incisor site (56.7 ±35.9, 36.2 ±18.6) had higher trueness than that of located at the premolar site (94.1 ±20.4, 100.3 ±20) when SP2 (P=.037) and SP4 (P=.002) were used. The implant at the molar site (71.9 ±25.7, 147.2 ±49.7) had trueness either similar to (when SP2 was used, P≥.276) or lower than (when SP4 was used, P≤.024) those of others. Scans of the central incisor and premolar implants had the lowest trueness when scanned with SP1 (P≤.009), while the scans of molar implant showed higher trueness when performed by using SP2 and SP3 when compared with SP4 (P≤.005). When SP4 was used, the implant at the molar site had lower precision (43 ±18.9) than the implants located at the central incisor (14.1 ±11) and premolar sites (15.4 ±11.3) (P=.002). Scan patterns affected the scan precision of central incisor implant (P=.009), as SP4 (14.1 ±11) led to a higher precision than SP1 (47.7 ±27) (P=.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The scan accuracy of combined healing abutment-scan body system was affected by scan pattern and implant location. SP1, which involved palatal and rotational scans resulted in the lowest trueness for central incisor and premolar implants, while the scans of the central incisor implant showed the highest trueness among different sites when SP4 was used. However, the scan pattern and implant site had a minor effect on precision. Scan precision at different implant sites only differed when SP4 was used, which resulted in the lowest precision for molar implant.