Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study

Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best-fit method was then applied in the computer-aided design (CAD) software to compute the three-dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross-arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.

Influence of the ambient color lighting on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using two intraoral scanners

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The influence of different ambient factors including lighting has been previously studied. However, the influence of ambient color lighting settings on intraoral scanning accuracy remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of ambient color lighting on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans recorded by using 2 intraoral scanners (IOSs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary cast with 6 implant scan bodies was digitized by using a laboratory scanner (DW-7-140) to obtain a reference file. Two groups were created based on the IOS tested: TRIOS 4 (IOS-1) and i700 (IOS-2). Seven subgroups were developed depending on the ambient color lighting (red, green, blue, yellow, cyan, magenta, and white) (n=15). Scanning accuracy was analyzed by using a metrology software program (Geomagic Control X). The Kruskal-Wallis, 1-way ANOVA, and pairwise comparisons were used to analyze the data (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant trueness and precision values were found across the groups (P<.05) and subgroups (P<.05). For IOS-1, blue ambient lighting obtained the best trueness (19.8 ±1.8 µm) (P<.05); in precision, white light (20.8 ±7.3 µm) and blue light (22.1 ±13.5) showed the best results (P<.05). For IOS-2, white light showed the best trueness (51.9 ±16.7 µm); the best precision was obtained under magenta (38.6 ±10.4 µm) and yellow light (52.6 ±24.0 µm) (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal ambient color lighting varied between the IOSs assessed. As the best condition for maximizing accuracy was not found, ambient color lighting must be individualized for the IOS system used.

Impact of scanning range and image count on the precision of digitally recorded intermaxillary relationships in interocclusal record using intraoral scanner

PURPOSE

The effect of scan range and the number of scanned images on the precision of in vivo intermaxillary relationship reproduction was evaluated using digital scans acquired with an intraoral scanner.

METHODS

The study involved 15 participants with normal occlusion. Two different interocclusal recording settings were employed using the intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4): 'MIN,' focusing on the minimal scan range of the first molar region, and 'MAX,' including the scan range from the right first premolar to the right second molar. These settings were combined with three different image counts, resulting in six experimental conditions. Interocclusal recordings were performed four times for each condition. Dimensional discrepancies between datasets were analyzed using three-dimensional morphometric software and compared using two-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

Median dimensional discrepancies (interquartile range; IQR) of 39.2 (30.7-49.4), 42.2 (32.6-49.3), 30.3 (26.8-44.1), 20.1 (16.0-34.8), 21.8 (19.0-25.1), and 26.6 (19.9-34.5) µm were found for MIN/200, MIN/400, MIN/600, MAX/200, MAX/400, and MAX/600, respectively. Significant differences in dimensional discrepancies according to scan range were found. Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed significant differences between MAX and MIN (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Scan range may affect the precision of intermaxillary relationship reproduction. Thus, scanning of the most extensive region practically achievable is recommended.

Influence of a specially designed geometric device and modified scan bodies on the accuracy of a maxillary complete arch digital implant scan: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Capturing accurate complete arch digital implant scans remains a challenging process because of the lack of recognizable anatomic landmarks. The effect of modified scan bodies (SBs) on improving scanning accuracy is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of a maxillary complete arch digital implant scan when using a specially designed geometric device with the accuracy of modified scan bodies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four implants were placed in an edentulous maxillary model made of porous bone material with polyurethane attached gingiva. Scan bodies were attached to the implants and then digitized with a high precision laboratory scanner to create the reference scan. Round depressions were made on the buccal and palatal surfaces of the scan bodies, and the model was scanned with an intraoral scanner using 4 different scenarios: the model with no geometric device or modified scan bodies (ND-NM), device only without modified scan bodies (D-NM), no device but with modified scan bodies (ND-M), and device with modified scan bodies (D-M). Each group was scanned 10 times for a total of 40 scans. Trueness and precision were evaluated using inspection software to measure the 3D surface deviation. Trueness was measured by superimposing each test scan on the reference scan, and precision was calculated by superimposing the test scans of the same group with each other. Data were analyzed using the GraphPad Prism version 8.0.0 software program. Two-way ANOVA was performed to assess the effect of the device and modifications on trueness and precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Both the geometric device and SB modifications had a significantly significant effect on trueness and precision (P<.001). Regarding trueness, group D-M had the lowest mean and standard deviation (0.158 ±0.028 mm) in contrast with group ND-NM, which had the highest deviation (0.282 ±0.038 mm). In terms of precision, group D-M showed the lowest mean and standard deviation (0.134 ±0.013 mm), while group ND-NM revealed the highest deviation (0.222 ±0.031 mm). However, no statistically significant interaction was found between the device and modifications regarding either trueness or precision (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a specially designed geometric device improved both the trueness and precision of complete arch digital implant scans. The modified SBs had a positive influence on the scanning trueness and precision, and the best accuracy was achieved when using the geometric device and the modified SBs simultaneously.

Effect of auxiliary geometric devices on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of a novel auxiliary geometric device (AGD) on the accuracy of full-arch scans captured with 3 different intraoral scanners (IOS).

METHODS

An edentulous maxillary model with four internal connection implant replicas was scanned using 3 different IOS: iTero Element 5D (ITERO) (Align Technology, Tempe, AZ, USA), Trios 4 (TRIOS) (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), and Carestream 3700 (CS) (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, USA). Thirty-six scans were taken with each IOS, 18 with the AGD in place, and 18 without the AGD. A digital master model was created using an industrial optical scanner (ATOS compact Scan 5M, GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany). The master and IOS models were aligned using the scan bodies as a reference area. A surface comparison was performed, and deviation labels were exported for each scan body to evaluate the linear and angular deviation. Total body, platform and angular deviations were measured.

RESULTS

The use of AGD resulted in a statistically significant increase of angular deviation: 0.87° (SD=0.21) in the AGD group versus 0.64° (SD=0.46) in the no AGD group (p-value=0.005). The difference between the AGD and no AGD groups was not statistically significant for total body and platform deviation values (p-value=0.051 and 0.302 respectively). Using AGD, ITERO showed a statistically significant increase in angular deviation (mean difference=-0.46 µm, p-value=0.002) and a decrease in mean platform deviation (mean difference=63.19 µm, p-value<0.001). No statistically significant differences were found for the other IOS.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of AGD did not add benefit on CS and TRIOS. On ITERO, there was an improvement in platform deviation, that was outweighed by the worsening of the angular deviation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In vitro data suggest that intraoral scans can be successfully used in full-arch cases. The use of AGD has no additional benefit on CS and TRIOS. On ITERO there was an improvement in platform deviation that was outweighed by the worsening of the angular deviation. Translational application to clinical practice deserves further investigation, taking into account patient-related and anatomical variables.

Effect of geometric heterogeneity using an auxiliary device on the accuracy of complete arch implant scanning: An in vitro study of different clinical simulations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral scanning of implants supporting complete arch prostheses is limited because of the lack of geometric heterogeneity and unique reference points, creating inherent errors in the image stitching process by the scanner software program.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the significance of geometric heterogeneity on complete arch implant scanning by using a novel auxiliary geometric device. Three different clinical simulations were tested to assess its significance. The study also assessed whether scans produced using the auxiliary device would meet a clinically acceptable threshold.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 60 scans (n=20) were performed using an intraoral scanner in 3 different clinical simulations: 2 parallel implants, 4 parallel implants, and 4 implants with a 30-degree posterior angulation of the distal implants. Scanning alternated between using the auxiliary geometric scanning device (test groups; 4IP+, 4IA+, 2IP+) and not using the device (control groups; 4IP-, 4IA-, 2IP-). A reference scan for each model was prepared from a high precision laboratory scanner. The scans were analyzed for accuracy in 3-dimensional deviation, interimplant distance deviation, and angular deviation by using an inspection software program. The effect of the auxiliary device was statistically analyzed by comparing scans of the same group using the paired t test for normally distributed data and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test when data were not normally distributed (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant effects of the auxiliary geometric device were found in 3-dimensional, distance and angular deviations (P<.05). Scans performed using the device were significantly more accurate in most implant positions (P<.05). Linear and angular deviations were clinically acceptable for all test groups. However, the deviations were above the clinically acceptable threshold for the control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an auxiliary geometric device significantly improved scanning accuracy and produced scans with clinically acceptable deviations, while standard digital scans exceeded the accepted clinical threshold.

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.

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.

Investigating the implant position reproducibility of optical impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner and 3D-printed models fabricated using an intraoral scanner

PURPOSE

This study aims to examine the effect of the size of the intraoral scanning area on implant position reproducibility and compare the implant position reproducibility of plaster models fabricated using the silicone impression technique, the digital model of an intraoral scanner, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed models fabricated using an intraoral scanner.

METHODS

Scanbodies were attached to an edentulous model with six implants (master model) and were scanned using a dental laboratory scanner to obtain basic data. The plaster model was fabricated using the open-tray method (IMPM; n = 5). The master model was then scanned in various implant areas using an intraoral scanner to obtain data (IOSM; n = 5); the scanning data of six scanbodies were used to fabricate the 3D-printed models (3DPM; n = 5) using a 3D printer. Scanbodies were attached to the implant analogs of the IMPM and 3DPM models and data were obtained using a dental laboratory scanner. The basic data and IMPM, IOSM, and 3DPM data were superimposed to calculate the concordance rate of the scanbodies.

RESULTS

The concordance rate of intraoral scanning decreased as the number of scanbodies increased. Significant differences were observed between the IMPM and IOSM data, and between the IOSM and 3DPM data; however, the IMPM and 3DPM data did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The implant position reproducibility of the intraoral scanner decreased with an increase in the scanning area. However, ISOM and 3DPM may provide higher implant position reproducibility than plaster models fabricated using IMPM.

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.

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.

Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device

Background/purpose

Digital impressions using intraoral scanners have recently gained popularity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the fit of full-arch screw-retained cobalt-chromium frameworks fabricated via two different digital impression methods.

Materials and methods

An edentulous resin master model with four dental implants was fabricated. Forty cobalt-chromium superstructures were fabricated and evaluated according to four groups. In Group 1, the superstructures were evaluated using an intraoral scanner to generate digital impressions. Group 2 relied on the help of an auxiliary geometric appliance in generation of digital impressions via intraoral scanner. The traditional method of splinted open-tray conventional impressions was designated for Group 3. Finally, the control group (Group 4) relied on scanning of the master model directly with a laboratory scanner. Vertical marginal discrepancy was evaluated, and data obtained were statistically analyzed.

Results

The highest mean vertical marginal gap value (80.86 ± 50.06 μm) was observed for Group 1 and statistically higher than Group 2, 3, and 4 (P < 0.05). The lowest mean vertical marginal gap value (41.98 ± 26.33 μm) was measured from Group 4 and statistically similar to Group 2 and 3 (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

It has been suggested that the use of auxiliary geometric appliances yields increased scanning accuracy. Frameworks fabricated using the traditional splinted open-tray technique were more reliable compared to those frameworks from digital impressions.

A new proposal for improving the accuracy of intraoral scanning for partially edentulous residual ridge

PURPOSE

This study investigated the usefulness of a newly proposed intraoral scanning method, using markers that can be used directly in the oral cavity, in order to improve the accuracy of impression taking of the residual ridge for fabrication of removable partial dentures.

METHODS

An intraoral scanner was used to scan a dental model of a partially edentulous mandibular arch (Kennedy Class I). As markers, pieces of dried pasta were used. The scanning operation was performed under three conditions. In Condition 1, scanning was performed on the remaining teeth and the residual ridge without markers. In Condition 2, scanning of the remaining teeth and residual ridge was performed with markers. In Condition 3, the markers were removed from the model used in Condition 2, and the residual ridge was scanned again. The scanning data of each condition was superimposed on the control data, and the shape error was calculated and compared among the conditions.

RESULTS

There was a significant difference in trueness of the residual ridge before and after marker application. The application of markers improved the trueness, while maintaining precision. Re-scanning after removing the marker did not affect trueness between before and after re-scanning and the re-scanned region showed shape continuity with the surrounding region.

CONCLUSION

The present method using markers that can be used in the oral cavity was effective in improving the accuracy of impression taking at the residual ridge.

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.

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.

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.

In Vitro Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Impressions for Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions when compared to conventional impressions, when performed on the abutment or implant level. Methods: One resin cast with six implants and another cast with six abutments were scanned with Primescan v5.1 (PS51), Primescan v5.2 (PS52), Trios 3 (T3), and Trios 4 (T4). Additionally, conventional impressions (A) were made, poured in gypsum, and digitized using a lab scanner (IScan D104i). A coordinate machine (Atos, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany) was used to generate the reference scan of both casts. For all scans, the position of the implants was calculated and matched with the reference scan. Angular and coronal measurements per implant were considered for trueness and precision. Results: For the implant-level model, PS52 performed significantly better in terms of trueness and precision compared to all other impressions, except for the angular trueness of A (p = 0.072) and the coronal trueness of PS51 (p = 1.000). For the abutment-level model, PS52 also performed significantly better than all other impressions, except for the coronal trueness and precision of A (p = 1.000). Conclusions: Digital impressions for full-arch implant supported prostheses can be as accurate as conventional impressions, depending on the intra-oral scanner and software. Overall, abutment level impressions were more accurate compared to implant level impressions.

Effect of assistive devices on the precision of digital impressions for implants placed in edentulous maxilla: an in vitro study

PURPOSE

To examine the effect of assistive devices on the precision of digital impression for multiple implants placed in the edentulous maxilla.

METHODS

A reference model representing an edentulous maxilla with four implants was developed. The digital impression group included three settings: Type 0, without an assistive device; Type 1, with an assistive device connecting only neighboring implants; and Type 2, with an assistive device connecting not only neighboring implants but also the two posterior implants, with perpendicular branches from this bar towards the anterior implants. Digital impressions were made five times for each type using three intraoral scanners (IOSs). For conventional method, silicone impressions and verification jigs were prepared; fabricated plaster models were scanned using a laboratory scanner/industrial 3D scanner. In analysis 1, two-way ANOVA analyzed the effect of IOSs and assistive devices on the precision of digital impressions. In analysis 2, one-way ANOVA compared the silicone impressions, the verification jigs, and the most precise group of digital impressions from analysis 1.

RESULTS

In analysis 1, the IOS and assistive device type (F = 25.22, p < .0001) effects and the interaction between these two factors (F = 5.64, p = .0005) were statistically significant. In analysis 2, CON, VJ, and digital impression with Type 2 devices (most precise devices in analysis 1) were compared; better precision was obtained by digital impression with Type 2 device than by CON and VJ (F = 30.08, p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

For implants placed in an edentulous maxilla, digital impressions with assistive devices can provide better precision compared to silicone impressions and verification jigs.

Accuracy of the Intra- and Extra-Oral Scanning Technique for Transferring the Intaglio Surface of a Pontic of Provisional Restorations to Definitive Restorations

When taking the final impression for a three-unit fixed partial denture (FPD), the intaglio surface of the pontic of provisional restoration cannot be transferred accurately to that of definitive restoration. The intra- and extra-oral scanning (IEOS) technique, a method for accurately reproducing the submucosal morphology of the superstructure of an implant, has been reported using an intraoral scanner. In the present study, we evaluated the difference between the conventional impression method using impression material and the IEOS technique in reproducing the morphology of the surface of the pontic of a definitive FPD. There was a significant difference in the trueness of the intaglio surface morphology of the pontic between the conventional method and the IEOS technique; however, no significant difference in precision was observed. As a result, the intaglio surface of the pontic of the three-unit FPD could be transferred to definitive restorations more accurately with the IEOS technique than with the conventional method. These results suggest that the IEOS technique can duplicate the intaglio surface of the pontic more reproducibly to the definitive restorations compared with the conventional method.

In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of the study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions for fixed dental prosthesis under in vitro and in vivo conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight patients (five women and three men) with at least one edentulous arch and with 4-6 osseointegrated implants participated in this study. For each edentulous arch (n = 10), experimental screw-retained titanium bar with attached four scan bodies was fabricated. The bar containing four scan bodies was screw-retained intraorally on implants and scanned with Trios 3 intraoral scanner eight times (IOS group, in vivo). Then, the bar was attached to the master cast and scanned eight times again with the same intraoral scanner (MIOS group, in vitro). Finally, the bar with scan bodies was scanned 8 times with a laboratory scanner (reference). Precision and trueness were calculated for 3 distances and 3 angles between the scan bodies (1-2, 1-3, and 1-4) in IOS and MIOS groups.

RESULTS

Precision and trueness for the largest distance (1-4) were found to be 44 ± 18 µm and 32 ± 19 µm for the IOS group and 31 ± 16 µm and 30 ± 14 µm for MIOS group, respectively. Precision and trueness for the angle between the most distant scan bodies (1-4) were 0.22 ± 0.14° and 0.18 ± 0.10° for the IOS group and 0.16 ± 0.11° and 0.07 ± 0.05° for MIOS group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoral conditions moderately affected the precision and trueness of Trios 3 (3Shape) intraoral scanner. Results of in vitro accuracy studies cannot be directly transferred to the clinical field.

Application of a new scan body for face-driven fixed prosthetics

Objective

The current method of digitally designing dental prostheses mainly focuses on intra‐oral soft and hard tissues, although the harmony of the facial soft tissue and the prosthesis is crucial, especially for esthetics. Here, we introduce a new method of digitally designing dental prostheses using a new device that generates a virtual patient and incorporates facial features into the prosthetic design.

Materials and methods

A new extra‐oral scan body for facial scanning was designed and developed. A definitive edentulous maxilla implant cast with four extra‐oral scan bodies (regions: maxillary left and right lateral incisors, maxillary left and right premolars) was placed in the mouth of a dental mannequin. The dental mannequin was scanned with and without the extra‐oral scan bodies. For reference data, an impression of the maxilla was taken and scanned with a laboratory scanner. By superimposing each acquired data, a virtual patient was generated, and the spatial location of the abutments relative to the face was clarified. Identifying the accurate location of the abutments enabled to design face‐driven dental prosthesis.

Results

Based on the color‐coded deviation map created by the data acquired from conventional and extra‐oral scan bodies, the divergence of the two data was mostly within 0.1 mm, which proves that the extra‐oral scan bodies were as accurate as conventional scan bodies. Therefore, the facial scan data and the scan data of the oral cavity were successfully superimposed, which allowed to generate a virtual patient to design face‐driven prosthesis.

Conclusion

The new method is effective for designing high‐quality face‐driven prostheses, especially when treating a patient with a full‐arch implant‐fixed prosthesis.

Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review

Background

With the development of intraoral scanners, their trueness and precision have been evaluated in various studies. Through these studies, the amount of accuracy that can be expected from intraoral scanners has gradually been disclosed, at the same time, it was difficult to integrate the results of individual studies due to differences in evaluation methods between studies. The purpose of this article was to review the currently available evidence, summarise what is currently known about IOS, analyse the evaluation methods of each study, and list points to note when interpreting the results.

Main text

Most of the studies were conducted in vitro. The accuracy is evaluated in situations such as single missing teeth, partially edentulous ridges with multiple missing teeth, and fully edentulous jaws. To evaluate the accuracy, direct measurement of distance or angle by coordinate measuring machines and calculation of surface deviation by superimposing surface data were predominantly performed. The influence of parameters such as the number of implants, distance between implants, angle between implants, and experience of the operator was evaluated. Many studies have shown that trueness tends to decrease as the distance between the implants and the scan range increases. It was agreed that the implant angle did not affect either trueness or precision. Regarding other factors, the results varied among studies. Therefore, the effects of these parameters are not clear.

Conclusions

Heterogeneity in the research methodology was prevalent among the studies considered in this review. Therefore, we cannot make a decisive statement regarding the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by IOSs. So far, the comparison of the numerical values of error between studies has yet to elucidate any clear answers, despite small methodological differences.

Clinical evaluation of the precision of interocclusal registration by using digital and conventional techniques

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Although studies have evaluated the accuracy of data obtained by intraoral scanners (IOSs), studies on the precision of interocclusal registrations made with IOSs are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the precision of IOS interocclusal registration with that of conventional methods with a silicone impression material and a gypsum cast.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight participants with complete natural dentitions were enrolled. Images of their maxillary and mandibular quadrant arches and their interocclusal relationship were scanned with 2 IOSs: the 3M True Definition Scanner and the TRIOS Scanner 3. In the conventional method, impressions of complete-arch dentition and quadrant-arch dentition were made with a silicone impression material, and gypsum casts were fabricated, mounted on a dental articulator related with a silicone interocclusal record, and scanned with a 3D laboratory scanner. These procedures were repeated 4 times, and 4 sets of interocclusal registration data in standard tessellation language (STL) format were generated for each condition. Interocclusal registration precision was evaluated by determining the discrepancy of the STL data between repeated measurements by using the best-fit-algorithm method.

RESULTS

The average discrepancies for all participants were 25 ±12 μm for the True Definition, 31 ±7 μm for the TRIOS 3, 154 ±59 μm for the complete arch, and 128 ±33 μm for the quadrant arch. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that the effect of the impression methods on the discrepancy was statistically significant (P<.001). The Steel-Dwass test showed that both digital scan methods exhibited significantly smaller discrepancies than the 2 conventional methods (P=.005).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the intermaxillary relationship captured by the digital scan method by using IOSs had better precision than that obtained by the conventional method.

Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral scanning has benefits over conventional impression making, but whether scanning is sufficiently accurate for multiple implants is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of digital scans acquired by using intraoral scanners from a small range to a complete arch with the conventional impression technique and to determine the influence of 2 different evaluation methods (best-fit algorithm versus absolute linear deviation) on the outcomes of accuracy assessment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A mandibular model with 8 implants (A-H) around an edentulous arch was used as the master model. Open-format standard tessellation language (STL) data sets (1 reference file from a highly accurate dental laboratory scanner, 10 files from an intraoral scanner, and 10 files from digitized conventional impressions at room temperature) were imported to a metrology software program, and 5 groups of scanning ranges (AB, FGH, CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH) were identified simulating different clinical situations. Two evaluation methods-root mean square values calculated from the best-fit algorithm and average value of linear discrepancies from absolute linear deviation-were used to describe the trueness values. The impacts of different scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods were tested by using a 3-way ANOVA. The effect of the scanning range on accuracy was further identified with 1-way ANOVA. The paired-sample t test was used to determine the differences of trueness values between the 2 methods in different groups.

RESULTS

The trueness values of the implant impressions were significantly affected by different scanning or impression methods (P<.001), evaluation methods (P<.001), and scanning ranges (P<.001) as independent variables. With use of the best-fit algorithm, deviations from the digital scans were significantly greater than those from the conventional impressions in cross-arch situations (groups CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH). With use of the absolute linear deviation method, statistically significant lower accuracy was found when larger areas were encountered (groups BCDEFG and ABCDEFGH). Use of the absolute linear deviation method resulted in a higher mean score of inaccuracy than that from the best-fit algorithm method in most situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods affected the dimensional accuracy (trueness) of scans or impressions with multiple implants. Digital scans had worse trueness values compared with those made with the conventional splinting open-tray technique when cross-arch implant impressions were acquired.

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.

Understanding the complexities of digital dentistry integration in high-volume dental institutions

The purpose of this article is to detail the primary challenges faced by large dental institutions as they incorporate digital dentistry into their mainstream workflow. Integration of digital technology is easier in private practices with smaller patient volumes and fewer trained staff required. Additionally, in private practices, scanning, designing and milling frequently occur in a single location, which does not require an external digital data transfer. However, large dental institutions must overcome several barriers which are uniquely generated by their large-scale operation. Numerous individuals must be comprehensively and efficiently trained to operate the advanced technologies. The digital software must seamlessly integrate with existing software and an internal infrastructure must be established capable of handling massive data inputs. High-volume production in large dental institutions requires the involvement of external laboratories to meet demand. This outsourcing presents a new challenge of safe digital data transfer in accordance with patient privacy and protection regulations set forth by governing agencies. It is vital for large dental institutions to recognise the unique challenges thrust upon them as they attempt to incorporate a digital workflow. With proper forethought and planning an appropriate infrastructure may be established allowing for a smooth and safe transition to the digital era.

An open-source multifunctional registration device for implant-supported complete dentures

A 3D printed registration device is described for implant-supported complete dentures that simultaneously register implant position, soft-tissue contour, anterior tooth position, occlusal vertical dimension, and centric relation. This information is captured clinically in 10 to 20 minutes and can then be transferred to the dental laboratory technician to continue the prosthetic workflow. The standard tessellation language (STL) file for the registration device is available for free download and use.

Evaluation of the Precision of Different Intraoral Scanner-Computer Aided Design (CAD) Software Combinations in Digital Dentistry

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the precision of correlation between intraoral scanners and computer aided design (CAD) software programs used during scanning and designing phases of digital dentistry. In the present study, CAD software programs that accept data in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) and proprietary format have been evaluated and data loss has been examined in the scanned data. MATERIAL AND METHODS A single unit crown preparation was conducted for maxillary right first molar on a fully dentulous model. The prepared tooth was scanned with a high precision industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80) and the reference digital model was obtained. The dental model was further scanned 10 times using 3 different intraoral scanners (CEREC Omnicam AC, TRIOS 3 Color Pod, and Aadva IOS 100). The data obtained from the reference scanner and intraoral scanners were transferred to different CAD programs (CEREC inLab, TRIOS Design Studio, Exocad) and digital crowns were designed for each scanned data-CAD combination. After that, the data losses that occurred between these transfers were evaluated by superimposition technique in a special software (VR Mesh v7.5) (alpha=0.05). RESULTS Among the all combinations of scanner and software, Omnicam AC-InLab was determined to be the most precise combination through the full digital workflow since the Omnicam AC-Exocad combination showed the highest deviations. CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it was determined that the combinations of scanners and associated CAD programs yielded more accurate results, and data loss was revealed when the scanned data converted from the proprietary format to the STL format.