Influence of 3D analysis software on measured deviations of CAD-CAM resin crowns from virtual design file: an in-vitro study

Effect of analysis software program on measured deviations in complete arch, implant-supported framework scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Implementation of fabrication trueness analysis by using a recently introduced nonmetrology-grade freeware program may help clinicians and dental laboratory technicians in their routine practice. However, knowledge of the performance of this freeware program when compared with the International Organization for Standardization recommended metrology-grade analysis software program is limited.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of an analysis software program on measured deviations in the complete arch, implant-supported framework scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 20 complete arch, implant-supported frameworks were fabricated from a master standard tessellation language (STL) file from either polyetheretherketone (PEEK) or titanium (Ti) (n=10). All frameworks were then digitized by using different scanners to generate test STLs. All STL files were imported into a nonmetrology-grade freeware program (Medit Link) and a metrology-grade software program (Geomagic Control X) to measure the overall and marginal deviations of frameworks from the master STL file by using the root mean square (RMS) method. Data were analyzed by using the two 1-sided paired t test procedure, in which 50 µm was considered as the minimal clinically meaningful difference (α=.05).

RESULTS

When overall RMS values were considered, the nonmetrology-grade freeware program was not inferior to the metrology-grade software program (P<.05). When marginal RMS values were considered, the nonmetrology-grade freeware program was inferior to the metrology-grade software program only when PEEK frameworks were scanned with an E4 laboratory scanner (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the tested nonmetrology-grade freeware program resulted in overall deviation measurements similar to those when a metrology-grade software program was used. The freeware program was inferior when marginal deviations were analyzed on E4 scans of a PEEK framework, which was the only scanner-material pair that led to a significant difference, among the 15 pairs tested.

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.

Impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in complete-arch digital implant investigation

OBJECTIVES

To measure the impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in digital implant research using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A six-implant edentulous maxillary model was scanned using a desktop scanner (7Series; DentalWings; Montreal, Canada) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4; 3Shape; Copenhagen, Denmark) to generate a reference and an experimental mesh, respectively. Thirty experimental standard tesselletion language (STL) files were superimposed onto the reference model's STL using the core features of six superimposition methods, creating the following groups: initial automated pre-alignment (GI), landmark-based alignment (G1), partial area-based alignment (G2), entire area-based alignment (G3), and double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire model area-based alignment (G4 ) or the scan bodies' surface (G5). The groups underwent various alignment variations, resulting in sixteen subgroups (n = 30). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified by using the root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its fluctuation as precision. The Kruskal-Wallis test with a subsequent adjusted post-hoc Dunn's pairwise comparison test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). The reliability of the measurements was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

RESULTS

A total of 480 superimpositions were performed. No significant differences were found in trueness and precision among the groups (p > 0.05), except for partial area-based alignment (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed significant differences for partial area-based alignment considering only one scan body (p < 0.001). Initial automated alignment was as accurate as landmark-based, partial, or entire area-based alignments (p > 0.05). Double alignments did not improve alignment accuracy (p > 0.05). The entire area-based alignment of the scan bodies' surface had the least effect on accuracy analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital oral implant investigation remains unaffected by the superimposition method when ISO-recommended 3D metrology-grade inspection software is used. At least two scan bodies are needed when considering partial area-based alignments.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses in digital implant investigation.

Trueness of crowns fabricated by using additively and subtractively manufactured resin-based CAD-CAM materials

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Advancements in digital dental technologies have enabled the use of different resin-based materials that can be fabricated either additively or subtractively. However, knowledge on the fabrication trueness of these materials is scarce.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the trueness of crowns fabricated by using different resin-based computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A complete crown for a mandibular right first molar with a 30-μm cement space was designed in standard tessellation language (STL) format. This master STL (MC-STL) was used to fabricate 40 complete crowns with 4 different resin-based CAD-CAM materials and either additive (Crowntec [MS]) or subtractive techniques (Brilliant Crios [BC], breCAM.monoCOM [PMMA], and G-CAM [GR]; n=10). All crowns were digitized with an intraoral scanner (CEREC Primescan SW 5.2) to generate their STL files (TC-STLs). MC-STL and TC-STLs were transferred into a 3-dimensional analysis software program (Medit Link v2.4.4), and a trueness (overall, external, occlusal, intaglio occlusal, and marginal) analysis was performed by using the root mean square (RMS) method. The Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests were performed to analyze data (α=.05).

RESULTS

The test groups had significantly different deviations on all surfaces (P≤.001). MS crowns had higher overall (P≤.007) and external surface (P≤.001) deviations than GR and PMMA crowns, while the differences between GR and PMMA crowns were not significant (P≥.441). BC crowns had higher external surface deviations than GR crowns (P=.005), higher occlusal deviations than GR and MS crowns (P≤.007), and higher intaglio occlusal deviations than GR and MS crowns (P≤.009). However, BC crowns had lower marginal deviations than MS and GR crowns (P≤.018).

CONCLUSIONS

The brand of resin-based CAD-CAM materials affected the trueness of crowns. Additively manufactured crowns (MS) mostly had lower overall and external surface trueness than the other groups. Nevertheless, the deviation values of occlusal, intaglio occlusal, and marginal trueness were generally small; thus, the effect of the tested materials on clinical crown fit may be negligible.

Impact of different CAD software programs on marginal and internal fit of provisional crowns: An in vitro study

Statement of the problem

Different CAD software programs used for designing crowns show variations in marginal and internal fit. Marginal and internal discrepancies may cause poorly fitting crowns.

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare the marginal and internal fit of single crown temporary restorations designed using three different CAD software programs.

Materials and methods

Dentbird, Exocad and Inlab 20 were used to design temporary single crowns using the same cement gap. Three experimental groups (n = 10/group) were formed based on the CAD software used. Geomagic Control X three-dimensional analysis software was used to compare the marginal and internal fit among the groups. Measurements were obtained at nine different thickness points. IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22 was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

Among the CAD software programs tested, Dentbird produced the best internal fit on the buccal surface and the best marginal fit on both buccal and mesial surfaces. Exocad achieved the best values on the distal surface for both internal and marginal fit, while Inlab showed the best values on the mesial surface for internal fit and on the palatal surface for marginal fit.

Conclusions

The Dentbird CAD software program provided the most accurate fit values that closely matched the design. The marginal and internal fit oftemporary crowns may vary depending on the CAD software used.

Implementation of triple-scan protocol to evaluate the fit of complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses

Passive fit is essential for multiple-unit implant-supported prostheses. Conventional methods to assess the passivity of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses do not allow 3-dimensional (3D) visualization and quantification of misfit. This report describes the marginal and internal fit evaluation of a complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis by using the triple-scan protocol involving a scanner and a 3D analysis freeware. This technique allows researchers, clinicians, or dental technicians to detect and quantify 3D prosthetic misfit, which may facilitate the preparation for dental appointments and objective measurement of misfit for research studies.

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.

In-vivo evaluation of Artificial Intelligence Driven Remote Monitoring technology for tracking tooth movement and reconstruction of 3-dimensional digital models during orthodontic treatment

INTRODUCTION

An in-vivo evaluation of the Dental Monitoring (DM; Paris, France) Artificial Intelligence Driven Remote Monitoring technology was conducted in an active clinical setting. Our objectives were to compare the accuracy and validity of the 3-dimensional (3D) digital models remotely generated from the DM application to 3D Digital Models generated from the iTero Element 5D intraoral scanner (Align Technologies, San Jose, Calif) of patients' dentition during in-vivo fixed orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

The orthodontic treatment of 24 patients (aged 14-55 years) was tracked across an average of 13.4 months. Scans of the maxillary and mandibular arches of each patient were taken by an iTero intraoral scanner and with the DM application before treatment initiation without (T0) and with (T1) the fixed orthodontic appliances and at every in-person adjustment appointment (T2-T10). The global deviation between the reconstructed digital models from the DM and iTero scans was compared at each time point using Geomagic Control-X 2020 (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC). Descriptive analysis was conducted to determine the mean deviation at each time point for the maxillary and mandibular arches, to compare the maxilla and mandible mean deviations at each time point to the null hypothesis mean of 0 mm and the paired mean of the average at each time point between the maxilla and mandible.

RESULTS

The findings revealed no clinically significant difference between the reconstructed digital models generated by the iTero IOS and the remotely reconstructed digital dental models generated by the DM application.

CONCLUSION

DM artificial intelligence tracking algorithm can track tooth movement and reconstruct 3D digital models to a clinically acceptable degree for orthodontic application.

Effect of scan powder and scanning technology on measured deviations of complete-arch implant supported frameworks digitized with industrial and intraoral scanners

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the suitability of intraoral scanners (IOSs) to analyze the fabrication trueness of titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks by comparing with an industrial-grade scanner and investigate how anti-reflective scan powder affects measured deviations.

METHODS

Ten titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks were milled from a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. An industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80 (AT)) and three IOSs (Primescan (PS), TRIOS T3 (T3), and TRIOS T4 (T4)) with (PS-P, T3-P, and T4-P) or without (PS, T3, and T4) anti-reflective scan powder application were used to generate test STL (TSTL) files of the frameworks. Reference STL and TSTLs were imported into a metrology-grade analysis software (Geomagic Control X) and whole surface root mean square (RMS) values were calculated. Another software (Medit Link v 2.4.4) was used to virtually isolate marginal surfaces of all STL files and marginal RMS values were calculated by using the same metrology-grade analysis software. A linear mixed effects model was used to compare the transformed deviations of the scans performed by using each IOS (with or without powder) with the deviations of those performed by using the reference AT scanner within each surface, where a Box-Cox type transformation was used for variance stability. Bonferroni corrected post-hoc tests were used to compare conditions within each IOS (α=0.05).

RESULTS

All IOSs had significantly higher whole surface and marginal RMS values than AT, regardless of the condition (P≤.002). However, scan powder application did not affect the whole surface and marginal RMS values in scans of tested IOSs (P≥.054).

CONCLUSION

Measured whole surface and marginal deviations in all IOS scans performed with or without the use of scan powder were higher than those in AT scans. The application of anti-reflective scan powder did not affect the deviations in scans of tested IOSs.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Even though deviations measured in the scans of tested scanners were significantly different than those in the reference scanner, the maximum raw mean difference was 37.33 µm and the maximum raw confidence interval value of estimated differences was 47.88 µm, which can be considered clinically small taking into account the size of the frameworks tested. Therefore, tested intraoral scanners may be feasible to scan prostheses similar to or smaller than tested frameworks for fabrication trueness analysis, which may facilitate potential clinical adjustments.

Comparison of intraoral and laboratory scanners to an industrial-grade scanner while analyzing the fabrication trueness of polymer and titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks

OBJECTIVES

To compare the scans of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) and laboratory scanners (LBSs) to those of an industrial-grade optical scanner by measuring deviations of complete-arch implant-supported frameworks from their virtual design file.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ten polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and 10 titanium (Ti) complete-arch implant-supported frameworks were milled from a master standard tessellation language (STL) file. An industrial-grade blue light scanner (AT), 2 LBSs (MT and E4), and 3 IOSs (PS, T3, and T4) were used to generate STL files of these frameworks. All STLs were imported into an analysis software (Geomagic Control X) and overall root mean square (RMS) values were calculated. Marginal surfaces of all STL files were then virtually isolated (Medit Link v 2.4.4) and marginal RMS values were calculated. Deviations in scans of tested scanners were compared with those in scans of AT by using a linear mixed effects model (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

When the scans of PEEK frameworks were considered, PS and T3 had similar overall RMS to those of AT (p ≥ .076). However, E4 and T4 had higher and MT had lower overall RMS than AT (p ≤ .002) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 13.41 µm. When the scans of Ti frameworks were considered, AT had significantly lower overall RMS than tested scanners (p ≤ .010) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 31.35 µm. Scans of tested scanners led to significantly higher marginal RMS than scans of AT (p ≤ .006) with a maximum estimated mean difference of 53.90 µm for PEEK and 40.50 µm for Ti frameworks.

CONCLUSION

Only the PEEK framework scans of PS and T3 led to similar overall deviations to those of AT. However, scans of all tested scanners resulted in higher marginal deviations than those of AT scans.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scans performed by using PS and T3 may be alternatives to those of tested reference industrial scanner AT, for the overall fabrication trueness analysis of complete-arch implant-supported PEEK frameworks.

Fabrication trueness and internal fit of hybrid abutment crowns fabricated by using additively and subtractively manufactured resins

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the fabrication trueness and internal fit of hybrid abutment crowns fabricated by using additively and subtractively manufactured restorative materials.

METHODS

A maxillary first premolar crown with a screw access channel was designed onto a digitized master titanium base abutment. This file was used to fabricate 40 crowns additively (Crowntec (CT) and VarseoSmile Crown Plus (VS)) or subtractively (Brilliant Crios (BC) and Vita Enamic (EN)) (n = 10). Crowns were digitized with an intraoral scanner and root mean square method was used to evaluate fabrication trueness. Master abutment and the crowns when seated on the abutment were also digitized with the same intraoral scanner and triple scan method was used to evaluate internal fit. Data were analyzed either with 1-way ANOVA (surface deviations) or Kruskal-Wallis (internal fit) tests (α= 0.05).

RESULTS

CT had the highest overall, external, and marginal surface deviations (P≤.030), whereas BC had the lowest external (P≤.001) and VS and EN had the lowest marginal surface deviations (P≤.007). BC had the highest intaglio surface deviations (P<.001). BC and EN had higher average gap values CT and VS (P≤.006); however, the differences within additively and subtractively manufactured materials were nonsignificant (P≥.858).

CONCLUSIONS

One of the tested additively manufactured resins (CT) resulted in mostly lower trueness than that of other materials. However, deviations at the intaglio and marginal surfaces were generally small and the maximum mean difference among test groups when average gap was considered was 17.4 µm. Therefore, clinical fit of hybrid abutment crowns fabricated with tested materials may be similar.

Digitization accuracy and scannability of different prosthodontic materials: An in vitro trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital scanning of different prosthodontic materials is commonplace in contemporary practice. However, the scannability of prosthodontic materials has not been thoroughly investigated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and measure the unscanned area in a preset time limit of commonly used framework materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A mandibular acrylic resin reference dental typodont with 3 teeth, with the central one prepared for a complete coverage crown, was digitized by using a desktop scanner. A complete coverage crown was generated in standard tessellation language (STL) format. Three groups were created from the digital design according to the crown material: milled polyetheretherketone (PEEK), milled airborne-particle abraded titanium, and milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). They were scanned with the desktop scanner to be used as reference files for each group. The intraoral scanner Medit i700 was used to digitize each specimen 10 times (n=10). Using a nonmetrology grade software program, the deviations between the test STL file of the intraoral scanner and the reference STL file of the desktop scanner were assessed by using the RMS values. The unscanned surface area in a preset time limit of 6 seconds (scannability) was assessed. Groups were compared by using 1-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post hoc test with Bonferroni correction when the results were significant. All tests were 2-tailed (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Regarding deviation analysis, RMS discrepancies were computed, and significant differences in trueness were found (P<.001) among the 3 studied groups. The titanium group had the highest trueness followed by the PEEK and PMMA groups, which were statistically similar (P>.05). Precision differed significantly among the 3 studied groups (P<.001). PEEK was the most precisely scanned material followed by titanium, and the PMMA group had the least precision. Regarding scannability, there were overall significant differences (P<.001). Titanium was the most scannable, followed by PEEK and then PMMA.

CONCLUSIONS

Airborne-particle abraded titanium had better trueness and scannability than PEEK and PMMA. However, PEEK was the most precisely scanned material.

Effect of number of supports and build angle on the fabrication and internal fit accuracy of additively manufactured definitive resin-ceramic hybrid crowns

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of number of supports and build angle on the fabrication and internal fit accuracy (trueness and precision) of additively manufactured resin-ceramic hybrid crowns.

METHODS

A mandibular first molar crown was designed and nested on the build platform of a printer either with a 30° angle between the occlusal surface and the build platform (BLS (less support) and BMS (more support)) or its occlusal surface parallel to the build platform (VLS (less support) and VMS (more support)) to fabricate additively manufactured resin-ceramic hybrid crowns (n=14). After fabrication, supports were removed by a blinded operator and all crowns were digitized with an intraoral scanner. Fabrication accuracy (overall, external, intaglio occlusal, occlusal, and marginal) was evaluated by using root mean square (RMS) method, while internal fit was evaluated with triple scan method. RMS, average gap, and precision of these data were analyzed (α= .05).

RESULTS

VLS had higher overall deviations than BLS and VMS (P≤.039). VMS had higher occlusal deviations than BLS (P=.033). While BMS and BLS had higher marginal deviations than VLS (P≤.006), BMS also had higher values than VMS (P=.012). BLS led to higher precision than VMS (intaglio occlusal and occlusal surfaces) and VLS (occlusal surface) (P≤.008). VLS led to higher precision than BMS (marginal surface) (P=.027). Average gap values were similar (P=.723); however, BLS resulted in higher precision than VLS (P=.018).

CONCLUSIONS

Considering their high marginal and occlusal surface trueness, and similar internal occlusal deviations and average gaps (trueness), clinical fit of resin-ceramic hybrid crowns fabricated with tested parameters may be similar. Reduced number of supports and angled orientation may lead to higher precision of fit.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested resin-ceramic hybrid-printer pair may be used to fabricate crowns with reduced number of supports to maintain occlusal surface integrity without compromising the fabrication accuracy and fit.

Evaluation of the virtual cement gap parameter of different CAD software programs in designing a single crown restoration: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of different virtual cement gap parameters in designing a single crown in a computer-aided design (CAD) software program is still unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the virtual cement gap settings of 3 different CAD software programs used to design a single crown restoration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three different CAD software programs (exocad, Dental System, and B4D) were evaluated for designing single crowns with similar virtual cement gap settings. Three experimental groups were created based on the CAD software program used (n=10). Three-dimensional analysis software program was used to assess the virtual cement gap in the CAD restoration. The Shapiro-Wilk test of normality was used. Comparisons were carried out by using 1-way ANOVA and the Scheffé post hoc test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The Dental System software program had the lowest statistical mean error values at both tooth margin (4.6 μm) and axial wall (1.5 μm), followed by B4D then exocad. At the occlusal surface, the lowest statistical mean error value of 5 μm was achieved by the Dental System followed by exocad then B4D.

CONCLUSIONS

Accuracy of the virtual cement gap parameter in single crown design varies based on the CAD software used. The highest accuracy was attained by the Dental System software program at all tooth surfaces, followed by B4D at the tooth margin and axial wall and by exocad at the occlusal surface.

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.

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.