Influence of the dental arch and number of cutting-off and rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of implant scans in partially edentulous situations

Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions-An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of including the palate and the number of images recorded during intraoral digital scanning procedure on the accuracy of complete arch scans.

METHODS

An experienced operator conducted 40 digital scans of a 3D printed maxillary model and divided them into two groups: 20 with inclusion of the palate (PAL) and 20 without (NPAL). Each set of scans was performed using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios 5; 3Shape A/S; Copenhagen, Denmark). The resulting STL files were imported into the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for accuracy comparison. A reference STL file was created using a 3Shape E3 laboratory scanner (3Shape Scanlt Dental 2.2.1.0; Copenhagen, Denmark). The number of images captured was recorded during the scanning procedure.

RESULTS

In the case of the right side no statistically significant difference in trueness was detected (84 µm ± 45.6 for PAL and 80.4 ± 40.4 µm for NPAL). In the case of the left side no significant difference in trueness was observed (215.1 ± 70.2 µm for PAL and 233.9 ± 70.7 µm for NPAL). In the case of the arch distortion a statistically significant difference in trueness was seen between the two types of scans (135.3 ± 71.9 µm for PAL and 380.4 ± 255.1 µm for NPAL). The average number of images was 831.25, and 593.8 for PAL and NPAL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning of the palatal area can significantly improve the accuracy of dental scans in cases of complete arches. In terms of the number of images, based on the current results, obvious conclusions could not be drawn, and further investigation is required.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scanning the palate may be beneficial for improving the accuracy of intraoral scans in dentate patients. Consequently, this should be linked to an appropriate scanning strategy that predicts palatal scanning.

Accuracy of maximum intercuspal position located by using four intraoral scanners and an artificial intelligence-based program

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Maxillary and mandibular scans can be articulated in maximum intercuspal position (MIP) by using an artificial intelligence (AI) based program; however, the accuracy of the AI-based program locating the MIP relationship is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present clinical study was to assess the accuracy of the MIP relationship located by using 4 intraoral scanners (IOSs) and an AI-based program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Conventional casts of a participant mounted on an articulator in MIP were digitized (T710). Four groups were created based on the IOS used to record a maxillary and mandibular scan of the participant: TRIOS4, iTero, i700, and PrimeScan. Each pair of nonarticulated scans were duplicated 20 times. Three subgroups were created: IOS, AI-articulated, and AI-IOS-corrected subgroups (n=10). In the IOS-subgroup, 10 duplicated scans were articulated in MIP by using a bilateral occlusal record. In the AI-articulated subgroup, the remaining 10 duplicated scans were articulated in MIP by using an AI-based program (BiteFinder). In the AI-IOS-corrected subgroup, the same AI-based program was used to correct the occlusal collisions of the articulated specimens obtained in the IOS-subgroup. A reverse engineering program (Geomagic Wrap) was used to calculate 36 interlandmark measurements on the digitized articulated casts (control) and each articulated specimen. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise multiple comparison Wilcoxon rank tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant trueness discrepancies among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001) were found, with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P<.001). The Levene test showed significant precision discrepancies among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P=.005). The TRIOS4 and iTero groups obtained better trueness and lower precision than the i700 and PrimeScan systems. Additionally, the AI-articulated subgroup showed worse trueness and precision than the IOS and AI-IOS-corrected subgroups. The AI-based program improved the MIP trueness of the scans articulated by using the iTero and PrimeScan systems but reduced the MIP trueness of the articulated scans obtained by using the TRIOS4 and i700.

CONCLUSIONS

The trueness and precision of the maxillomandibular relationship was impacted by the IOS system and program used to locate the MIP.

Accuracy of an artificial intelligence-based program for locating the maxillomandibular relationship of scans acquired by using intraoral scanners

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

An artificial-intelligence (AI) based program can be used to articulate scans in maximum intercuspal position (MIP) or correct occlusal collisions of articulated scans at MIP; however, the accuracy of the AI program determining the MIP relationship is unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present clinical study was to assess the influence of intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 5 or i700) and program (IOS or AI-based program) on the accuracy of the MIP relationship.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Casts of a participant mounted on an articulator were digitized (T710). A maxillary and a mandibular scan of the participant were recorded by using 2 IOSs: TRIOS 5 and i700. The scans were duplicated 15 times. Then, each duplicated pair of scans was articulated in MIP using a bilateral occlusal record. Articulated scans were duplicated and allocated into 2 groups based on the automatic occlusal collisions' correction completed by using the corresponding IOS program: IOS-corrected and IOS-noncorrected group. Three subgroups were created based on the AI-based program (Bite Finder) method: AI-articulated, AI-IOS-corrected, and AI-IOS-noncorrected (n=15). In the AI-articulated subgroup, the nonarticulated scans were imported and articulated. In the AI-IOS-corrected subgroup, the articulated scans obtained in the IOS-corrected group were imported, and the occlusal collisions were corrected. In the AI-IOS-corrected subgroup, the articulated scans obtained in the IOS-noncorrected subgroup were imported, and the occlusal collisions were corrected. A total of 36 interlandmark measurements were calculated on each articulated scan (Geomagic Wrap). The distances computed on the reference scan were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies with each experimental scan. Nonparametric 2-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparison Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner tests were used to analyze trueness. The general linear model procedure was used to analyze precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant maxillomandibular trueness (P=.003) and precision (P<.001) differences were found among the subgroups. The IOS-corrected and IOS-noncorrected (P<.001) and AI-articulated and IOS-noncorrected subgroups (P=.011) were significantly different from each other. The IOS-corrected and AI-articulated subgroups obtained significantly better maxillomandibular trueness and precision than the IOS-noncorrected subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The IOSs tested obtained similar MIP accuracy; however, the program used to articulate or correct occlusal collusions impacted the accuracy of the MIP relationship.

Impact of scanning distance on the accuracy of a photogrammetry system

PURPOSE

To measure the impact of the scanning distance on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans acquired by using a photogrammetry (PG) system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An edentulous cast with 6 implant abutment analogs was obtained. A brand new implant scan body was positioned on each implant abutment and digitized using an extraoral scanner (T710; Medit) and the reference file was obtained. Three groups were created based on the scanning distance used to acquire complete-arch implant scans by using a PG (PIC System; PIC Dental): 20 (20 group), 30 (30 group), and 35 cm (35 group). An optical marker (PIC Transfer, HC MUA Metal; PIC Dental) was placed on each implant abutment and a total of thirty scans per group were acquired. Euclidean linear and angular measurements were obtained on the reference file was obtained and used to compare the discrepancies with the same measurements obtained on each experimental scan. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to analyze the precision values (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Significant linear (P < .001) and angular trueness (P < .001) discrepancies were found among the groups. For linear trueness, Tukey test showed that the 20 and 30 groups (P < .001) and 30 and 35 groups were different (P < .001). For angular trueness, the Tukey test revealed that 20 and 30 groups (P = .003), 20 and 35 (P < .001), and 30 and 35 groups were different (P < .001) The Levene test showed no significant linear precision (P = .197) and angular discrepancies (P = .229) among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The scanning distance influenced the trueness of complete-arch implant scans obtained with the PG method tested. The maximum linear trueness mean discrepancy among the groups tested was 10 µm and the maximum angular trueness mean discrepancy among the groups tested was 0.02 .