Understanding the effect of scan spans on the accuracy of intraoral and desktop scanners

Influence of limited mouth opening in children on intraoral scanning accuracy: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Although intraoral scanning is highly reliable, little is known about its accuracy in young children with limited mouth-opening ability.

AIM

To determine the accuracy of intraoral scans based on the degree of mouth opening.

DESIGN

To simulate mouth opening in children with primary dentition, three groups (n = 5 per group) were allocated by maximum mouth opening of 30, 37 and 40 mm. After the primary dentition model was connected to a dental phantom, intraoral scanning was performed using iTero and TRIOS4. The scanned files were digitally evaluated. Root mean square values were calculated to assess trueness and precision.

RESULTS

iTero showed deviations of three-dimensional trueness of 0.067 ± 0.008, 0.063 ± 0.001 and 0.065 ± 0.005 mm, and TRIOS4 of 0.07 ± 0.002, 0.064 ± 0.003 and 0.066 ± 0.002 mm in the 30, 37 and 40 mm groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in either mouth opening (p > .017) or the intraoral scanners (p > .05). The same statistical results were obtained for precision, with the exception of the 30 mm of mouth opening.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this study, limited mouth opening hardly influenced the accuracy of intraoral scanning.

Effect of cut-out rescanning protocol on the accuracy of digital impressions in convergent implants positioned at varying depths: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the effect of the "cut-out rescan" strategy on the accuracy of intraoral digital scans from 25° convergent implants positioned at two distinct depths.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two customized models were fabricated, each designated to receive two posterior converged implant fixtures: one at a depth of 1 mm and the other at a depth of 4 mm. Initially, the models were scanned as reference casts using a lab scanner. The test group was involved in scanning the 1-mm and 4-mm implant models using an intraoral scanner in the following order: (1) scanning the 1-mm (T1; n = 10) and (2) 4-mm (T4; n = 10) implant groups with scan bodies connected to both fixtures in each model; (3) cut-out rescan (COR) in the 1-mm (COR1; n = 10) and (4) 4-mm (COR4; n = 10) models, leading to 40 digital files in standard tessellation language format. The mean absolute deviation (MAD), in terms of trueness and precision, between the experimental and control scans was assessed through the alignment of their respective datasets using three-dimensional analysis software. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Levene's tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The COR4 group exhibited the highest MAD, indicative of both trueness and precision (Mean ±SD: 55.659 ±34.802). In contrast, the T1 group demonstrated the lowest MAD (Mean ±SD: 43.225 ±19.237). However, the ANOVA analysis showed no significant influence of depth (P = 0.506) or type of scan (P = 0.442) on the MAD. Precision also did not differ significantly across groups (P = 0.071).

CONCLUSIONS

The cut-out rescan approach demonstrated an accuracy comparable to that of the one-time scan method.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Digital intraoral scanning provides clinicians with a range of tools to navigate challenging conditions in which conventional methods may prove difficult, such as cases involving angled adjacent implants. In these scenarios, the cut-out rescan tool serves as a valuable resource, aiding clinicians in overcoming the challenges associated with impression-making owing to the convergence of placed implants.

Effect of prefabricated auxiliary devices in different optical properties and shapes on the accuracy of intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch with multiple implants: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of prefabricated auxiliary devices (PADs) in different optical properties and shapes on the accuracy of digital implant impressions.

METHODS

An edentulous maxillary all-on-4 master model was fabricated. PADs were 3D-printed in different resin materials (Grey, Translucent, White, Yellow) and shapes (Cuboid, Cylinder, Sphere) using a 3D printer (AccuFab-C1s, 3DShining, Hangzhou, China). The master model was digitalized using a dental laboratory scanner (D2000, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) 4 times as the reference models. Test models were obtained without (control group) or with PADs by an intraoral scanner (Aoralscan 3, Shining3D, Hangzhou, China) for ten repetitions of each group using the scanning pattern recommended by the manufacturer. The related files were imported into inspection software to assess Root Mean Square (RMS), linear and angular accuracy. Aligned Ranks Transformation ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate the differences in these values. The level of significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

PADs in different optical properties and shapes demonstrated accuracy enhancement to different extents depending on their combinations. The PADs in combinations of white-cuboid, grey-sphere and yellow-sphere demonstrated the optimal trueness enhancement. The Aligned Ranks Transformation ANOVA indicated that the optical properties of the PADs significantly influenced the RMS, linear and angular accuracy. The main effect of optical properties indicated that translucent PADs generally generated more deviations than the others. The shapes of the PADs significantly influenced the angular accuracy. The main effect of shapes indicated that cylinder resulted in lower angular trueness on YZ plane than cuboid (p = 0.006) and sphere (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The optical properties and shapes of the PADs significantly influenced the scanning accuracy. Translucent PADs demonstrated more deviations than the others. Lower angular trueness on the YZ plane was seen in cylinder design compared to the others.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The optical properties and shapes of prefabricated auxiliary devices should be critically considered to optimize the scanning accuracy. Prefabricated auxiliary devices in translucent optical properties and cylinder shape should be avoided.

Calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP) for full-arch implant impressions: An in vitro comparison to conventional impression, intraoral scan, and intraoral scan with scan-aid

OBJECTIVE

To assess a newly developed intraoral scan protocol in enhancing the accuracy of complete-arch implant impressions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four impression approaches were applied to the same maxillary edentulous model with 6 implants: (1) intraoral scan (IOS), (2) intraoral scan with scan aid (IOS-SA), (3) calibrated intraoral scan protocol (CISP), and (4) conventional splinted open-tray impression (CONV). Each approach was repeated 10 times, and a direct scan of the model with a desktop scanner was used as a reference model. The alignment of scans and the reference model was conducted by two methods: (a) aligning all scan bodies to evaluate the overall fit, and (b) aligning the first and second scan bodies to simulate the Sheffield fit test for passive fitting of multiple implant-supported prostheses. Linear deviations from the reference model (trueness) and within each group (precision) were analyzed using Python scripts.

RESULTS

When aligned by all scan bodies, the CISP group exhibited comparable mean trueness (38.33 μm) and precision (45.97 μm) to the CONV group (44.30 and 47.92 μm respectively), both of which significantly outperformed the IOS group (86.82 and 83.17 μm, respectively). Furthermore, in the virtual Sheffield fit test, the CISP group achieved the highest levels of mean trueness at the end span (121.7 μm), making a linear deviation reduction of 36.7%, 60%, and 41.4% when compared to the CONV, the IOS, and the IOS-SA groups, respectively. Moreover, the CISP group (104.3 μm) displayed a remarkable 65, 182, and 86 μm advantage in precision over the CONV, IOS, and IOS-SA groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CISP demonstrated comparable accuracy to the gold standard, the conventional splinted open-tray impression. Furthermore, it excelled in the virtual passive fitting test.

Intraoral scanners as tracking devices: A dental protocol for assessing volumetric changes between intraoral scans

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are digital data acquisition technologies that ease the recording of virtual diagnostic casts. Some IOSs have a specific software tool to assess volumetric changes between 2 scans acquired on the patient at different times. The scans are superimposed and volumetric differences between both meshes are reported. However, these software tools may be limited to scans captured only by the IOS of the same manufacturer. The present manuscript describes a protocol for comparing volumetric changes between 2 scans recorded using any IOS. Additionally, 1 of the scans is divided into 3 sections to minimize the alignment distortion and maximize the evaluation of the volumetric changes.

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.

Evaluation of the accuracy of seven intraoral scanners for the full dentate and partially edentulous complete-arch mandibular casts: An in vitro comparison

Statement of problem

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) are widely used in dentistry, providing high accuracy in short-range scanning. Nevertheless, when scanning the full dental arch, it remains a challenge. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies reporting the differences in scan accuracy between dental arches with large-span mucosal areas and fully dentate casts or optimal IOS selection for different dental statuses.

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and scanning time of different IOSs for full dentate (FD) and partially edentulous (PE) casts with missing teeth in the #34-#44 range and to determine the IOSs with the optimal clinical adaptability and scanning accuracy for different complete-arch casts.

Material and methods

Reference scans of two complete-arch (FD and PE) casts were obtained using a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600). Subsequently, the same casts were scanned ten times each by seven IOSs (3Shape Trios 3, CS3600, Planmeca Emerald, iTero Element 5D, Medit i500, BAMBOO B1, and Shining Aoralscan 3), and the scanning time was recorded. The test data were superimposed on the reference scans for the selected areas, and three-dimensional deviations between the reference and test casts (trueness), and between test casts (precision) were determined using reverse engineering software (Geomagic Wrap). The dataset was analyzed using a two-factor analysis of variance with post-hoc Bonferroni tests.

Results

Two-factor analysis of variance revealed significant differences in accuracy and scanning time for different casts (P < 0.001) and IOSs (P < 0.001). For the FD cast, the i500 (0.35 ± 0.11 mm trueness) and CS3600 (0.23 ± 0.12 mm precision) performed worse than the remaining scanners. For the PE cast, the BAMBOO B1(0.89 ± 0.58 mm trueness; 0.88 ± 0.48 mm precision) performed worse than the remaining scanners. There were no differences in the accuracy of scanning between the Element 5D and Emerald for both cast types. However, the scanning time differed significantly between the different IOSs (P < 0.001). Regardless of the cast type, the fastest and slowest scans were performed by the Trios3 and CS3600 scanners respectively.

Conclusions

The accuracy and scanning time differed between the different IOSs and types of complete-arch casts.

Effect of the Inter-Tooth Distance and Proximal Axial Wall Height of Prepared Teeth on the Scanning Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners

This study aimed to analyze the effect of the height of the proximal axial wall of the prepared tooth and the distance between the adjacent tooth and the prepared tooth on the scan accuracy of intraoral scanners. Ten working casts with maxillary first molars prepared to receive zirconia crowns were randomly obtained from a dental clinic. Each of the 10 casts was scanned using two intraoral scanners (i700; MEDIT and CS3600; Carestream; computer-aided design [CAD] test model, CTM; N = 15 per working cast) 15 times per scanner. Individual dies of the prepared teeth were fabricated, and high-precision scan data were acquired using a laboratory scanner (CAD reference model, CRM; N = 1). CTMs were aligned relative to the prepared tooth of CRMs by using three-dimensional inspection software (Ver 2018.1.0; Control X; 3D Systems). Data were statistically analyzed using an independent t-test and one-way analysis of variance for between-group comparisons (α = 0.05). The inaccuracy in the proximal regions (mesial or distal) of the prepared tooth was higher than that in the buccal and lingual regions (p < 0.05). The scan accuracy was not correlated with the variables when the distance between the adjacent tooth and the prepared tooth was ≥2.0 mm and the height of the proximal axial wall of the prepared tooth was <3.0 mm (p > 0.05). Therefore, an excellent scan accuracy can be obtained using an intraoral scanner when the distance between the adjacent tooth and the prepared tooth is ≥2.0 mm and the proximal axial wall height of the prepared tooth is <3.0 mm.

Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Multiple factors can influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). However, the impact of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of IOSs for fabricating tooth-supported crowns remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present in vitro study was to measure the influence of scan extension (half or complete arch scan) and the starting quadrant (same quadrant or contralateral quadrant of the location of the crown preparation) on the accuracy of four IOSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710) to obtain a reference scan. Four scanner groups were created: TRIOS 5, PrimeScan, i700, and iTero. Then, 3 subgroups were defined based on the scan extension and starting quadrant: half arch (HA subgroup), complete arch scan starting on the left quadrant (CA-same subgroup), and complete arch scan starting on the right quadrant (CA-contralateral subgroup), (n=15). The reference scan was used as a control to measure the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the tooth preparation, margin of the tooth preparation, and adjacent tooth areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

For the tooth preparation analysis, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.002). The iTero and TRIOS5 groups obtained better trueness than the PrimeScan and i700 groups (P<.001). Moreover, half arch scans obtained the best trueness, while the CA-contralateral scans obtained the worst trueness (P<.001). The iTero group showed the worst precision among the IOSs tested. For the margin of the tooth preparation evaluation, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The iTero group obtained best trueness (P<.001), but the worst precision (P<.001) among the IOSs tested. Half arch scans obtained the best trueness and precision values. For the adjacent tooth analysis, trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups tested (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best trueness and precision. Half arch scans obtained the best accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Scan extension and the starting quadrant impacted the scanning trueness and precision of the IOSs tested. Additionally, the IOSs showed varying scanning discrepancies depending on the scanning area assessed. Half arch scans presented the highest trueness and precision, and the complete arch scans in which the scan started in the contralateral quadrant of where the crown preparation was obtained the worst trueness and precision.

Lingual bracket transfer accuracy of double vacuum-formed indirect bonding tray using 3D-printed model: an in vivo study

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess the transfer accuracy of a digital indirect bonding method for lingual brackets using double vacuum-formed trays in vivo.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients in need of lingual orthodontic treatment were consecutively recruited. Bracket placement was performed on ideal setups, followed by fabricating indirect bonding trays through vacuum-forming on 3-dimensional printed models. Transfer accuracy was measured at each bracket after superimpositions of postbonding scans and reference data. One-tailed t tests were used to determine whether bracket deviations were within the limit of 0.5 mm and 2° for linear and angular dimensions, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 611 lingual brackets were evaluated. Mean linear transfer errors were 0.06 mm, 0.09 mm, and 0.12 mm, with frequencies of deviations within the 0.5 mm limit of 99.7%, 99.8%, and 98.0% for mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival dimensions, respectively. Regarding angular measurements, mean transfer errors were 1.28°, 1.73°, and 2.96°, with frequencies of deviations within the 2° limit of 81.0%, 68.9%, and 51.1% for rotation, tip, and torque, respectively. Mean errors fell within the clinically accepted limits for all linear dimensions and rotation but exceeded the limit for tip and torque.

CONCLUSIONS

Lingual bracket indirect bonding using double vacuum-formed trays fabricated on 3-dimensional printed models has high transfer accuracy in the mesiodistal, buccolingual, and occlusogingival dimensions and rotation. However, the transfer of tip and torque is less accurate.

Effect of different span lengths with different total occlusal convergences on the accuracy of intraoral scanners

PURPOSE

The aim was to assess the effect of span lengths and total occlusal convergence (TOC) on the accuracy of intraoral scanners .

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two typodont acrylic teeth models were prepared to receive fixed dental prostheses with three different span lengths. Span 1: between maxillary canines; span 2: between maxillary second premolars; and span 3: between maxillary second molars. In the first model, prepared teeth had a TOC of 12°, whereas, in the second model, teeth had a TOC of 20°. Each model was scanned 10 times using 4 different intraoral scanners (Omnicam, Primescan, Trios 4, and Medit i500). The STL files from the scans were compared to the reference models (trueness) and within each test group (precision) using a 3D comparison software. Data were then statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Regarding trueness, no significant differences were found among Primescan (32.58 ± 13.08), Trios 4 (32.33 ± 12.19), and Medit i500 (32.26 ± 9.57). However, all showed significantly better trueness than Omnicam (35.70 ± 8.35) (p < 0.001). The highest values were found in scans between the second molars (47.42 ± 3.94), followed by scans between second premolars (28.42 ± 3.78), and the highest trueness was found in scans between the canines (23.80 ± 3.85). For TOC, 12° had a significantly higher value than 20° (p < 0.001). Regarding precision, the highest values were found with Omnicam (29.84 ± 3.89), followed by Medit i500 (28.04 ± 2.94), then Trios 4 (25.64 ± 3.11), and Primescan (24.69 ± 5.25). The highest values and least precision were found in scans between the second molars (28.97 ± 5.27) and scans between second premolars (27.59 ± 3.97), whereas the highest precision was found in scans between the canines (24.60 ± 2.04). For TOC, 12° had significantly higher values than 20° (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoral scans are directly affected by scanner type, TOC, and scan spans. All tested scanners showed clinically acceptable results even for long-span restorations.

Coordinate-based data analysis of the accuracy of five intraoral scanners for scanning completely dentate and partially edentulous mandibular arches

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Current methods for assessing the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) that reduce errors and provide comprehensive data compared with previous methods are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to present a coordinate-based data analysis method to compare the accuracy of 5 IOSs for scanning completely dentate and partially edentulous casts.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Reference scans of 2 complete arch casts (completely and partially dentate) were digitized using a high-precision laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600). Each cast was scanned 10 times each using 5 IOSs (3Shape TRIOS 3, Planmeca Emerald, iTero Element 5D, Medit i500, and Shining Aoralscan 3). The dataset of all 10 test groups was analyzed by using a reverse engineering software program (Geomagic Wrap). Each test cast was aligned with the reference cast by 3-dimensional (3D) superimposition to determine the translation and rotation along the x-, y-, and z-axes. The dataset was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc Bonferroni tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in all parameters among all scanners when scanning the same cast (P<.05). Significant differences were observed in at least 1 parameter for all scanners, except Element 5D after scanning different casts using the same scanner. Deviations in the test data generally relocated toward the mesial, buccal, and apical sides, and the casts were almost always rotated clockwise around the y-axis and counterclockwise around the z-axis. For the completely dentate cast, among all IOSs, Element 5D demonstrated the highest accuracy in most of the measured parameters, specifically in the y-axis translation (0.06[0.07] mm), z-axis translation (0.08[0.05] mm), and y-axis rotation (0.21[0.16] degree) (P<.05). For the partially edentulous cast, Element 5D displayed higher accuracy in most of the measured parameters, including the x-axis translation (0.11[0.14] mm) and z-axis rotation (0.12[0.18] degree) (P<.05). Emerald also displayed higher accuracy in most of the measured parameters, including the y-axis translation (0.05[0.08] mm) and y-axis rotation (0.14[0.12] degree) (P<.05). Element 5D exhibited no difference in the scanning accuracy between the 2 types of casts (P>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Element 5D offered a high level of accuracy and was an appropriate scanner for both situations. The method presented in this study provides a good assessment of accuracy deviations in complete arch scans using 3D coordinate-based data analysis.

A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

OBJECTIVES

To describe a new classification for intraoral scans based on the scan extension and to introduce a decision guideline to choose the scan extension for fabricating tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

OVERVIEW

Multiple operator- and patient-related factors have been identified that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scan extension. However, the decision criteria for selecting scan extension for fabricating tooth- and implant-supported restorations is unclear. Based on the extension of the intraoral digital scans, three types of scans can be defined: half-arch (anterior or posterior), extended half-arch, and complete-arch scan. Variables to consider when choosing the scan extension include the number and location of units being restored, as well as the extension and location of edentulous areas. Additionally, the accuracy of the virtual definitive cast and the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured by using IOSs should be differentiated.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision tree for selecting the scan extension is presented. The decision is based on the number and location of units being restored, and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with reduced scan extension are indicated when fabricating tooth- and implant-supported crowns or short-span fixed prostheses, when the patient does not have more than one missing tooth in the area of the dental arch included in the scan. For the remaining clinical conditions, complete-arch intraoral scans are recommended.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scan extension is a clinician's decision that should be based on the number and location of units being restored and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with a reduced scan extension is recommended, when possible.

Influence of implant scan body design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on intraoral scanning accuracy: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of implant scan body (ISB) design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on the accuracy of digital implant scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the evaluation of ISB design on the accuracy of digital scans obtained by using IOSs were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus. Articles were classified based on the ISB features of height, geometry, material, and retention system.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included. Among the reviewed studies, 11 investigations analyzed the influence of different ISB geometries, 1 study assessed the impact of ISB diameter, 4 studies investigated the effect of ISB splinting, 2 articles evaluated ISB height, and 2 studies focused on the effect of ISB material on scan accuracy. In addition, 8 studies involved ISBs fabricated with different materials (1- and 2-piece polyetheretherketone and 1-piece titanium ISBs), and all of the reviewed articles tested screw-retained ISBs, except for 3 in vitro studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings did not enable concrete conclusions regarding the optimal ISB design, whether there is a relationship between IOS technology and a specific ISB design, or the clinical condition that maximizes intraoral scanning accuracy. Research efforts are needed to identify the optimal ISB design and its possible relationship with the IOS selected for acquiring intraoral digital implant scans.

Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the trueness and precision of five intraoral scanners (Emerald S, iTero Element 5D, Medit i700, Primescan, and Trios 4) and two indirect digitization techniques for both teeth and soft tissues on fresh mandibular and maxillary cadaver jaws.

METHODS

The maxilla and mandible of a fully dentate cadaver were scanned by the ATOS industrial scanner to create a master model. Then, the specimens were scanned eight times by each intraoral scanner (IOS). In addition, 8 polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions were made and digitized with a Medit T710 desktop scanner. Stone models were then poured and again scanned with the desktop scanner. All IOS, PVS, and stone models were compared to the master model to calculate the mean absolute surface deviation for mandibular teeth, maxillary teeth, and palate.

RESULTS

For mandibular teeth, the PVS trueness was only significantly better than the Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.05). In maxillary teeth, the PVS trueness was significantly better than all IOSs (p < 0.05-0.001); the stone trueness was significantly better than Emerald S (p < 0.01), Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.01). In the palate, PVS and stone trueness were significantly lower than the iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < p < 0.01). Stone trueness was significantly lower than the Medit i700 (p < 0.05). The precision in the palate was significantly lower for PVS and stone than for Emerald S (p < 0.01, p < 0.05), iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01, p < 0.01), Primescan (p < 0.001, p < 0.001), and Trios 4 (p < 0.001, p < 0.01). Significant differences in trueness between the IOSs were observed only in the mandibular teeth. The Medit i700 performed worse than Emerald S (p < 0.01) and iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01). For mandibular teeth, the Medit i700 was significantly more precise than Primescan (p < 0.01) and the Emerald S (p < 0.05). The Trios 4 was significantly less precise than Emerald S (p < 0.05). The precision of Medit i700 was significantly worse than iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) for maxillary teeth, as well as the Primescan (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < 0.05) for the palate.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, indirectly digitized models from PVS impressions had higher trueness than IOS for maxillary teeth; precision between the two methods was similar. IOS was more accurate for palatal tissues. The differences in trueness and precision for mandibular teeth between the various techniques were negligible.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

All investigated IOSs and indirect digitization could be used for complete arch scanning in mandibular and maxillary dentate arches. However, direct optical digitization is preferable for the palate due to the low accuracy of physical impression techniques for soft tissues.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A novel post-processing strategy to improve the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scanning for implants: an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To develop a new post-processing strategy that utilizes an auxiliary device to adjust intraoral scans and improve the accuracy of 3D models of complete-arch dental implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous resin model with 6 dental implants was prepared. An auxiliary device, consisting of an opaque base and artificial landmarks, was fabricated and mounted onto the resin model. Twenty intraoral scans (raw scans) were taken using this setup. A new post-processing strategy was proposed to adjust the raw scans using reverse engineering software (verified group). Additionally, ten conventional gypsum casts were duplicated and digitized using a laboratory scanner. The linear and angular trueness and precision of the models were evaluated and compared. The effect of the proposed strategy on the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans was analyzed using one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

The linear trueness (29.7 µm) and precision (24.8 µm) of the verified group were significantly better than the raw scans (46.6 µm, 44.7 µm) and conventional casts (51.3 µm, 36.5 µm), particularly in cross-arch sites. However, the angular trueness (0.114°) and precision (0.085°) of the conventional casts were significantly better than both the verified models (0.298°, 0.168°) and the raw scans (0.288°, 0.202°).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel post-processing strategy is effective in enhancing the linear accuracy of complete-arch implant IO scans, especially in cross-arch sites. However, further improvement is needed to eliminate the angular deviations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Errors generated from intraoral scanning in complete edentulous arches exceed the clinical threshold. The elimination of stitching errors in the raw scans particularly in the cross-arch sites, through the proposed post-processing strategy would enhance the accuracy of complete-arch implant prostheses.

Full-arch restoration with the NEXUS IOS® system: A retrospective clinical evaluation of 37 restorations after a one year of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Report the results with a novel workflow of digital restoration for completely edentulous patients with implant supported full arch fixed dental prostheses (ISFDP).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective clinical study was based on the evaluation from a cohort of 29 patients restored with 37 ISFDP designed and manufactured from the data captured by a direct intraoral scan, using a novel full digital system (NEXUS IOS®, Osteon Medical, a Keystone Dental Group company, Melbourne, Australia). Data was collected over a 3-year period, in six different dental centers. This study reported on the clinical parameters including: precision of marginal fit, functional and aesthetic integration of Nexus ISFDP. All patients were followed for a period of one year post delivery. Implant survival, biologic and prosthetic complications were assessed, at one year. A statistical analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

All 37 ISFDP were deemed clinically acceptable on insertion. Implant survival at one year was 100 %. The biologic and prosthetic complications were minimal during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

ISFDP, designed and manufactured using the NEXUS IOS® system, are clinically acceptable, with a low incidence of complications at one year. Long-term clinical studies are needed.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Within the limitations of this study (retrospective design, small patient sample, limited follow-up) the NEXUS IOS® system seems to represent a viable solution for the restoration of completely edentulous patients with ISFDP, in a full digital workflow.

Accuracy of digital duplication scanning methods for complete dentures

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of four digital scanning methods in duplicating a complete denture.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four scanning methods were used: cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), Straumann desktop scanner (DS), Trios intraoral scanner (TIO), and Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner (VVIO). Each method was used to duplicate all the surfaces of a printed complete denture. The denture was scanned 10 times in each group. The trueness (in root mean square, RMS) and precision (in standard deviation, SD) were calculated by comparing the combined dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces with the reference file. One-way analysis of variance and F-tests were used to test statistical differences (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

For the scanning accuracy of the whole denture, CBCT showed the highest RMS (0.249 ± 0.020 mm) and lowest trueness than DS (0.124 ± 0.014 mm p < 0.001), TIO (0.131 ± 0.006 mm p < 0.001), and VVIO (0.227 ± 0.020 mm p = 0.017), while DS and TIO showed smaller RMS than VVIO (p < 0.001). For the trueness of dentition, denture extension, and intaglio surfaces, CBCT also showed the highest mean RMS and lowest trueness among all groups (p < 0.001). DS and TIO had smaller mean RMS and higher trueness among all groups in all surfaces (p < 0.001, except VVIO in intaglio surface, p > 0.05). TIO had significantly lower within-group variability of RMS and highest precision compared to DS (p = 0.013), CBCT (p = 0.001), and VVIO (p < 0.001) in the combined surface. For dentition and denture extension surfaces, TIO showed similar within-group variability of RMS with the DS group (p > 0.05) and lower than CBCT and VVIO (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner can duplicate dentures in higher trueness than CBCT and the Virtuo Vivo intraoral scanner. The Trios 4 intraoral scanner was more precise in the combined surfaces than other scanning methods, while the 7 Series desktop scanner and Trios 4 intraoral scanner were more precise in the denture extension surface.

Accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners versus a desktop scanner

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of a chairside reverse scanbody workflow for a complete arch implant-supported prosthesis using four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and a desktop scanner.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A complete arch implant-supported interim prosthesis was designed and milled in polymethylmethacrylate. Six reverse scanbodies (ScAnalog) were connected to the implant-prosthetic connections and twenty scans were made extraorally using four IOS devices (TRIOS 3, TRIOS 5, Primescan v.5.2, Medit i700W) and one desktop scanner (E4 RED). A coordinate machine (ATOS Q GOM) was used to assess the milling distortion. The scanbody positions were compared to the reference CAD design using metrology software. Linear and angular measurements per implant-prosthetic connection were considered for trueness and precision. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test.

RESULTS

Trueness values were 118.14 ± 25.49 µm for TRIOS 3, 84.62 µm ±19.10 for TRIOS 5, 106.39 ± 27.58 µm for Primescan v.5.2, 120.25 ± 27.44 µm for Medit i700W and 65.36 ± 4.66 µm for E4 RED. Significant differences in mean trueness values were found among IOS and E4 RED. Precision values were 108 ± 55 µm for TRIOS 3, 86 ± 55 µm for TRIOS 5, 104 ± 55 µm for Primescan v.5.2, 90 ± 54 µm for Medit i700W and 18 ± 11 µm for E4 RED. Significant differences in precision were found between IOS and E4 RED.

CONCLUSIONS

A chairside reverse scanbody workflow with IOS remains less accurate compared to similar workflow with a desktop scanner.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A chairside reverse scanbody workflow is a valuable alternative but the IOS device should be selected with caution because in the present study, only TRIOS5 was capable to achieve an accuracy below the clinical acceptable thresholds. The use of a desktop scanner remains the best choice for this clinical workflow. Additionally, the milling distortion of the interim prosthesis plays a major role in this reverse scanbody workflow and should be kept as low as possible.

In-vitro accuracy of a novel jaw-tracking technology

OBJECTIVES

As jaw-tracking systems integrate into digital prosthetic workflows, their accuracy remains underexplored. This study aimed to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of a novel digital jaw-tracking system (Modjaw, Villeurbanne, France) by comparing its precision and trueness to that of an industrial scanner.

METHODS

Upper and lower typodont models were scanned with an industrial-grade optical scanner (ATOS Q, Carl Zeiss GOM Metrology GmbH, Germany) to produce master scans. The models were placed in a phantom head with artificial joints to replicate five different intermaxillary relationships (IMRs). The 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mm IMR distances were stabilized by five silicone bites. The silicone bites were repositioned after each measurement. ATOS scanned the whole artificial joint with the models three times in each IMR to assess the precision of the repositioning (i.e., bite precision). The master scans were uploaded to Modjaw. Modjaw recorded the five IMR positions three times each to assess the precision of the Modjaw. Precision was calculated by aligning the scans within the same group, whereas Modjaw trueness was evaluated by aligning ATOS and Modjaw scans. The mean absolute distance (MAD) between aligned surfaces was calculated. The effect of IMR on the MAD was evaluated using a linear mixed model.

RESULTS

The mean bite precision across the IMRs was 7.6 ± 0.53 µm. Modjaw precision over the IMRS was 9.7 ± 1.76 µm, and the trueness was 10.8 ± 1.40 µm. Increased IMRs up to 4 mm significantly increased the MAD from 6.5 to 8.5 µm for the bite precision, 4.8 to 15.7 µm Modjaw precision, and 7.1 to 14.9 µm for trueness.

CONCLUSIONS

Modjaw excelled in accuracy, comparable to industrial scanners and superior to traditional methods. IMR elevation marginally deteriorates the accuracy. Future studies should extend to varied movements beyond centric relations and encompass the influence of intraoral scanners.

Conventional cast vs. CAD/CAM post and core in a fully digital chairside workflow - An in vivo comparative study of accuracy of fit and feasibility of impression taking

OBJECTIVES

Clinical data for CAD/CAM post and cores (PC) is still scarce, even though developments in digital dentistry have improved dental treatment in many aspects. Therefore, the purpose of this in vivo study was to compare CAD/CAM PC fabricated in a fully digital chairside workflow to conventional cast PC (CPC) according to the accuracy of fit and the impression taking. The null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference between CAD/CAM PC and CPC.

METHODS

The study was conducted on 30 teeth in 25 patients receiving a CPC during their prosthetic treatment plan. On each tooth a conventional and a digital post impression were taken. Subsequently, one CPC following a conventional and one CAD/CAM PC following a digital workflow were fabricated. Both PC were tried-in intraorally and assessed according to a standardised evaluation sheet. The deviation between the two impression methods was evaluated by superimposing the datasets in a 3D analysis software. Statistical analysis for pairwise comparison was conducted according to Wilcoxon and median test with a significance level of p = 0.05.

RESULTS

CAD/CAM PC performed significantly better compared to CPC according to accuracy of fit (p = 0.022) and feasibility of impression taking (p < 0.001). The deviation between post impression methods increased from "coronal" to "apical". Between "coronal"/"middle" no significant difference (p = 0.158) was detected, whereas the pairwise comparison between the other measurement categories showed significant differences (p = 0.002, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The null hypothesis was rejected since CAD/CAM PC performed significantly better and the deviation between the post impression methods showed significant differences.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

By using intraoral scanners (IOS) teeth can be restored with customised CAD/CAM PC in a single session. Within the limitations of this study the fully digital chairside workflow led to superior accuracy of fit of PC and higher feasibility of impression taking than the conventional workflow for CPC.

Impact of internal design on the accuracy of 3-dimensionally printed casts fabricated by stereolithography and digital light processing technology

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Altering the internal design of 3-dimensionally (3D) printed dental casts may help to reduce material and time consumption. However, it remains unclear whether such changes would compromise the accuracy of the casts. Further research is also needed to determine the optimal internal design that would maximize printing accuracy.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the impact of internal design on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3D printed dental casts fabricated by stereolithography (SLA) and digital light processing (DLP) technology.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A reference digital cast was obtained by scanning a maxillary typodont with an intraoral scanner to create 4 types of internal designs, including hollow interior with perforated base (HWB), hollow interior without base (HB), all solid (S), and internal support structure with perforated base (SWB). Digital casts with different internal designs were printed by two 3D printers with different technologies (SLA and DLP). The printed casts were scanned by a desktop scanner to obtain standard tessellation language (STL) format research digital casts. All reference and research digital casts were imported into a software program for comparison and analysis of accuracy. Differences between the reference and research digital casts were quantitatively indicated by the root mean square (RMS) value. The Kruskal-Wallis 1-way ANOVA was used to test significant differences between the different internal design types and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to test significant differences between the two 3D printers (α=.05).

RESULTS

The Kruskal-Wallis 1-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in the trueness and precision of different internal design types (all P<.001) for casts printed by both 3D printers. The trueness and precision were significantly worse for the HB design than for the other design types for casts printed by both 3D printers (all P<.05). Regardless of the design type, the trueness was significantly better for casts printed by the SLA-based printer than for casts printed by the DLP-based printer (all P<.05). The precision was significantly worse for casts printed by the SLA-based printer than for casts printed by the DLP-based printer (all P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The internal design may affect the accuracy of 3D printing. The base is necessary to ensure the accuracy of 3D printed dental casts, whereas the internal support structure did not affect the accuracy of 3D printed dental casts. An all-solid design led to higher precision, but not higher trueness. Dental casts printed with SLA technology have higher trueness and lower precision than those printed with DLP technology.

Fibre-reinforced Cad/CAM post and cores: The new "gold standard" for anterior teeth with extensive coronal destruction?-A fully digital chairside workflow

Objectives

Since one-third of persons suffer a dental trauma, treatment of anterior teeth using post and core (PC) is becoming important. In teeth with extensive destruction, cast PC (CPC) remain the "gold standard", even though they lead to aesthetic impairment and have a mismatching elastic modulus to that of dentin. Prefabricated fibre-reinforced posts have elastic modulus similar to that of dentin but the accuracy of fit and mechanical stability are worse. This study was aimed to evaluate the deviation and mechanical performance of fibre-reinforced CAD/CAM PC (FRPC) fabricated in a fully digital chairside workflow, compared to those of CPC.

Methods

On 30 teeth, a PC preparation was conducted, and a conventional and digital post impression were taken with an intraoral scanner. Fifteen teeth each were treated with CPC and FRPC, respectively. The deviation was evaluated by superimposing the datasets of the digitalised stone models and digital post impressions. Decementation and root fracture during chewing simulation were analysed by microscopy and X-ray. Statistical analysis was performed by pairwise comparison and Kaplan-Meier analysis.

Results

The median deviation for the "coronal", "middle" and "apical" were 14.5, 18.0 and 113.7 μm, respectively. The pairwise comparison for "coronal"/"middle" showed no significance (p = 0.465), whereas that for "coronal"/"apical" and "middle"/"apical" showed highly significant differences (p < 0.001). After chewing simulation, five decementations and two root fractures were detected for CPC. For FRPC, neither decementation nor root fracture were documented.

Significance

Within the limitations of this study, FRPC performed significantly better than CPC.

Assessment of physiological posterior-tooth displacement under habitual occlusal force by intraoral scanning using implant-supported crowns as the reference

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Studies that have used digital methods to quantitatively evaluate physiological tooth displacement under occlusal force are sparse.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to measure physiological posterior tooth displacement under occlusal force by intraoral scanning and reverse engineering technology by using implants as the reference.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 14 participants received 15 implant-supported single mandibular first molar crowns. The surface data of maxillary and mandibular posterior teeth (U1 and L1) and the buccal occlusal data in the maximum intercuspal position (MIP) with habitual occlusal force were obtained by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, v20.1.2). The U1 and L1 data were segmented into single teeth, which were then aligned to the buccal occlusal data by using the "best-fit alignment" command to build the data under occlusal force (U2 and L2). U1 and L1 data were compared with U2 and L2 data to calculate the centroid and functional cusp vertex displacements and the long axis deflections of the second premolars and second molars, taking the first molar as the reference. The medians, and first quartile (Q₁), third quartile (Q₃) of the above data were reported, and the Shapiro-Wilk and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze the differences (α=.05).

RESULTS

Under occlusal force, the median (Q₁, Q₃) centroid displacements of posterior teeth ranged from 61 (52, 101) μm to 146 (80, 186) μm; the functional cusp vertex displacements ranged from 82 (62, 117) μm to 146 (98, 189) μm, and the long axis deflections ranged from 0.45 (0.25, 0.87) degrees to 1.03 (0.52, 1.41) degrees. Mandibular second premolars displaced lingually, mesially, and apically; mandibular second molars displaced distally and apically; and maxillary second premolars and second molars displaced lingually and apically.

CONCLUSIONS

A digital method taking implant-supported single crowns as the reference was used to demonstrate physiological posterior-tooth displacement under habitual occlusal force.

Conventional and Digital Impressions for Fabrication of Complete Implant-Supported Bars: A Comparative In Vitro Study

Obtaining accurate models and well-fitting prostheses during the fabrication of complete implant-supported prostheses has been a significant challenge. Conventional impression methods involve multiple clinical and laboratory steps that can lead to distortions, potentially resulting in inaccurate prostheses. In contrast, digital impressions may eliminate some of these steps, leading to better-fitting prostheses. Therefore, it is important to compare conventional and digital impressions for producing implant-supported prostheses. This study aimed to compare the quality of digital intraoral and conventional impressions by measuring the vertical misfit of implant-supported complete bars obtained using both types of techniques. Five digital impressions using an intraoral scanner and five impressions using elastomer were made in a four-implant master model. The plaster models produced with conventional impressions were scanned in a laboratory scanner to obtain virtual models. Screw-retained bars (n = five) were designed on the models and milled in zirconia. The bars fabricated using digital (DI) and conventional (CI) impressions were screwed to the master model, initially with one screw (DI1 and CI1) and later with four screws (DI4 and CI4), and were analyzed under a SEM to measure the misfit. ANOVA was used to compare the results (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the misfit between the bars fabricated using digital and conventional impressions when screwed with one (DI1 = 94.45 µm vs. CI1 = 101.90 µm: F = 0.096; p = 0.761) or four screws (DI4 = 59.43 µm vs. CI4 = 75.62 µm: F = 2.655; p = 0.139). Further, there were no differences when the bars were compared within the same group screwed with one or four screws (DI1 = 94.45 µm vs. DI4 = 59.43 µm: F = 2.926; p = 0.123; CI1 = 101.90 µm vs. CI4 = 75.62 µm: F = 0.013; p = 0.907). It was concluded that both impression techniques produced bars with a satisfactory fit, regardless of whether they were screwed with one or four screws.

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 comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the precision of ATOS industrial, 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab desktop, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners. The second aim was to compare the trueness of Mediti700 assessed by ATOS and desktop scanners.

METHODS

Four plastic dentate models with 7-12 abutments prepared for complete arch fixed dentures were scanned by all scanners three times. Scans were segmented to retain only the abutments. The precision and trueness were calculated by superimposing scans with the best-fit algorithm. The mean absolute distance was calculated between the scan surfaces. The precision was calculated based on the 12 repeats. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the desktop and IOS scans to the industrial scans. IOS was also aligned with the two most accurate desktop scanners.

RESULTS

The precision of 3ShapeE4 and MeditT710 (3-4μm) was only slightly lower than that of ATOS (1.7μm, p<0.001) and significantly higher than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (6-10 μm, p<0.001). The trueness was the highest for the 3Shape E4 (12-13 μm) and Medit T710 (13-16 μm) without significant difference. They were significantly better than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (22-31μm, p<0.001). Accordingly, the Mediti700 trueness was evaluated by ATOS, 3ShapeE4, and MeditT710. The three trueness was not significantly different; ATOS (23-26 μm), 3Shape E4 (22-25 μm), and Medit T710 (20-23 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

All desktop scanners had the acceptable accuracy required for a complete arch-fixed prosthesis. The 3Shape E4 and the Medit T710 might be used as reference scanners for studying IOS accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab laboratory, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners can be used for the prosthetic workflow in a complete arch. 3ShapeE4 and the MeditT710 could be used to test the accuracy of various phases of a laboratory workflow, replacing the industrial scanners.

Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery in the Partially Edentulous Jaw Using Digital impression versus Desktop Scanner and CBCT cast scan: Randomized Clinical Trial

AIM: The aim of the study is to compare the accuracy of surgical guided implant produced by intraoral scanner, desktop scanner, and CBCT cast scan. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 63 dental implants were placed using 14 surgical guides. A total of 15 subjects, eight males and seven females (eight bilateral cases and seven unliteral cases), with mean age of 45 years (38–55 years) were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into three groups (n = 21 each): Group 1: Surgical guide manufactured using intraoral digital impression. Group 2: Surgical guide manufactured using model cast scanning by CBCT while Group 3: Surgical guide manufactured using model cast scanning by desktop scanner the linear and angular deviations of inserted planned implants were measured. RESULTS: In the intraoral scan group, the mean angular deviation, platform 3D deviation, apical 3D deviation, and vertical deviation were 2.5°, 0.7 mm, 1.1 mm, and 0.6 mm, respectively. While in desktop scanner group, the mean angular deviation, platform 3D deviation, apical 3D deviation, and vertical deviation were 2.6°, 0.1 mm, 1.1 mm, and 1.1 mm, respectively. In the CBCT scan group, the mean angular deviation, 3D platform deviation, 3D apical deviation, and vertical deviation were 3.5°, 1.3 mm, 1.6 mm, and 1.7 mm, respectively. There is no statistically significance difference between intraoral scanner, CBCT cast scan, and desktop scanning on implant deviation that was observed. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significance difference between intraoral scanner, CBCT cast scan, and desktop scanning on implant deviation that was observed although IOS shows better accuracy and least mean angular deviation.

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors

OBJECTIVES

To describe the factors related to the operator skills and decisions that influence the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision making when using IOSs and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans.

OVERVIEW

Each IOS system is limited by the hardware and software characteristics of the selected device. The operator decisions that can influence the accuracy of IOSs include the scanning technology and system selection, scanning head size, calibration, scanning distance, exposure of the IOS to ambient temperature changes, ambient humidity, ambient lighting conditions, operator experience, scanning pattern, extension of the scan, cutting off, rescanning, and overlapping procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge and understanding of the operator factors that impact scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs and for successfully integrating IOSs in daily practices.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Operator skills and clinical decisions significantly impact intraoral scanning accuracy. Dental professionals must know and understand these influencing operator factors for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

Guided implant surgery with R2Gate®: A multicenter retrospective clinical study with 1 year of follow-up

PURPOSE

To present the results obtained with a novel sleeveless and keyless guided implant surgery system.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria for this multicenter clinical retrospective study were fully or partially edentulous patients who had been treated with a sleeveless and keyless guided implant surgery system (R2Gate®, Megagen), and who had been rehabilitated with fixed restorations, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. All surgeries and prosthetic procedures were conducted following the same protocol, and data were obtained from the patients' medical records. The outcomes were the fit and stability of the surgical guide, any intra-operative and immediate post-operative complications, any biologic and prosthetic complications that occurred during the 1-year follow-up period, implant survival, and prosthetic success.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were selected for the installation of 124 implants, through a guided procedure: 66 sleeveless, keyless surgical guides were manufactured. The incidence of immediate intra-operative (lack of space: 12.1%; lack of implant stability 2.6%) and immediate post-operative (pain and discomfort: 6.6%; mild swelling 3.3%) complications was low. In total, 112/124 implants (90.3%) were successfully placed with a guided procedure, in 52 patients; among them, 82 (73.2%) were placed with a flapless procedure. Thirty fixtures supported single crowns (SCs), 42 fixed partial dentures (FPDs) and 52 full-arch (FA) restorations. Sixty-two fixed prosthetic restorations (30 SCs, 22 FPDs and 10 FAs) were delivered; among these restorations, 15 (24.1%) were subjected to immediate functional loading. All implants (100%) survived. Two implants had peri‑implant mucositis (1.6%), two SCs had abutment screw loosenings (1.6%), two FAs and one FPD had ceramic chipping/fracture (2.4%), for an overall prosthetic success amounting to 88.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this study, this novel guided surgery system appeared to be clinically reliable; further studies are needed to confirm these results.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of sleveless and keyless surgical guides can be clinically reliable and may be represent a valid option for the surgeon.

Time efficiency and efficacy of a centralized computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing workflow for implant crown fabrication: A prospective controlled clinical study

OBJECTIVE

To assess time efficiency and the efficacy of the prosthetic manufacturing for implant crown fabrication in a centralized workflow applying computer aided design and computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-nine patients with one posterior implant each, were randomly allocated to either a centralized digital workflow (c-DW, test) or a laboratory digital workflow (l-DW, control). Patients were excluded from efficiency and efficacy analyses, if any additional restoration than this single implant crown had to be fabricated. A customized titanium abutment and a monolithic zirconia crown were fabricated in the c-DW. In the l-DW, models were digitalized for CAD-CAM fabrication of a monolithic zirconia crown using a standardized titanium base abutment. Time for impression, laboratory operating and delivery time were recorded. The efficacy of the prosthetic manufacturing was evaluated at try-in and at delivery. Data was analyzed descriptively. Statistical analyses using student's unpaired t- and paired Wilcoxon were performed (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

At impression taking, 12 patients (c-DW) and 19 patients (l-DW) were included. The impression time was 9.4±3.5 min (c-DW) and 15.1 ± 4.6 min (l-DW) (p < 0.05). The laboratory operating time was 130 ± 31 min (c-DW) and 218.0±8 min (l-DW) (p < 0.05). The delivery time was significantly longer in the c-DW (5.9 ± 3.5 1 days) as compared to the l-DW (0.5±0.05 days). At try-in and at delivery, efficacy of prosthetic manufacturing was similar high in both workflows.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The c-DW was more time efficient compared to the lab-DW and rendered a similar efficacy of prosthetic manufacturing.

A custom-made removable appliance for the decompression of odontogenic cysts fabricated using a digital workflow

OBJECTIVES

This case series aimed to assess the feasibility of a custom-made decompression appliance fabricated using a digital workflow to decompress odontogenic cysts. Additionally, the treated cysts were assessed for volumetric changes.

METHODS

A three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction software (CoDiagnostiX version 10.4) was used to obtain the master cast STL (Standard Tessellation Language) file by placing a customized virtual implant to create a recess for the tube of the decompression device. The decompression appliance was planned using Dental Wings Open Software (DWOS). Following rapid prototyping, the tube of the appliance was perforated using round burs. In cases where the appliances were designed to replace teeth, denture teeth were added using the conventional workflow. The appliances were delivered on the day of the cystostomy. Following decompression, cyst enucleation was performed. Cyst volume was assessed by manual segmentation of pre- and post-operative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstructions using slice-by-slice boundary drawing with a scissors tool in the 3DSlicer 4.10.2 software. Percentage of volume reduction was calculated as follows: volume reduction/pre-operative volume × 100.

RESULTS

Six odontogenic cysts in six patients (5 male, 1 female; age 40 years, range: 15-49 years) with a pre- and post-operative cyst volume of 5597 ± 3983 mm³ and 2330 ± 1860 mm³ respectively (p < 0.05) were treated. Percentage of volume reduction was 58.84 ± 13.22 % following a 6-month-long decompression period.

CONCLUSIONS

The digital workflow described in this case series enables the delivery of decompression appliances at the time of cystostomy, thus effectively reducing the volume of odontogenic cysts. The resulting bone formation established a safe zone around the anatomical landmarks; therefore, during enucleation surgery, complications to these landmarks can be avoided.