Influence of the surface humidity, implant angulation, and interimplant distance on the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans

Effect of a Novel 'Scan Body' on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions

OBJECTIVE

This in vitro study aimed to determine whether a newly designed arcuate scan body can improve intraoral scanning accuracy for implant rehabilitation of edentulous jaws.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A master model containing 4 implant abutment replicas was fabricated and digitized with different scan bodies using an intraoral scanner. Four types of scan bodies were evaluated: original scan bodies (group OS), computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) scan bodies without extension (group CS), CAD/CAM scan bodies with straight extension (group CSS), and CAD/CAM scan bodies with arcuate extension (group CSA). Conventional splinted open-tray impressions (group CI) were used as controls. The master model and the poured casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner. Impressions were repeated 10 times each in 5 groups. Scans in standard tessellation language format were exported to reverse engineering software and root mean square (RMS) values were used for trueness and precision assessments. In each group, 45 RMS values were acquired for precision evaluation and 10 RMS values were obtained for trueness assessment. Statistical evaluation was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn-Bonferroni test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The median trueness values were 41.40, 55.95, 39.80, 39.75, and 22.30 μm for group OS, CS, CSS, CSA, and CI, respectively. CI showed better trueness than OS (P = .020), CS (P < .001), and CSS (P = .035). The median precisions for group OS, CS, CSS, CSA, and CI were 47.40, 51.50, 43.90, 25.20, and 24.60 μm. respectively. The precision of CSA and CI were higher than OS (P < .001), CS (P < .001), and CSS (P < .001). Between CI and CSA, there was no significant difference (P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

For full-arch implant rehabilitation, the scan body with arcuate extension could improve the intraoral scanning precision and showed similar 3-dimensional discrepancy compared to conventional splinted open-tray impressions.

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.

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.

Intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A narrative review

OBJECTIVES

To review the developments in intraoral scanner (IOS) technologies applied in implant prosthodontics, emphasizing their influence on the accuracy of digital impressions, occlusal registrations, and the fit of implant-supported restorations.

DATA

A collection of published articles related to implant prosthodontics, the accuracy of digital impressions, occlusal registration, and the fit of implant-supported fixed restorations.

SOURCES

Three search engines were selected: Medline/PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

A literature search screened relevant databases and journals for studies on IOS applications in digital implant prosthodontic workflows from Dec 2018 to Dec 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized control trials, clinical trials, case series, and in vitro research focused on the use of IOS in digital implant prosthodontics.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased utilization of digital dental technologies has led to significant integration of digital implant prosthodontic workflows into clinicians' clinical practice. Several variables affect the accuracy of digital impressions generated by IOS. Generally, the prevailing opinion in academic papers is that digital workflows are suitable for addressing short-span implant-supported restorations. However, when it comes to long-span defects, the accuracy of digital workflows is still a matter of debate. Digital bite registration is an integral part of the workflow. It depends mainly on the defect size and location, scan strategy, anatomical tooth variations, overbite and other factors. The overall fit of digitally prefabricated implant restorations comprises of proximal, occlusal contacts and how accurately the restoration connects with implants. Research methodologies need standardization for further validation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In clinical practice, it is essential to have a thorough and up-to-date comprehension of various factors that can affect the accuracy of digital impressions and the fit of the final prosthesis in implant prosthodontics.

Influence of Repeated Cut-off and Rescanning on the Trueness of the Intraoral Digital Scans

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of repeated cut-off and rescan procedures on the trueness of three intraoral scanners (IOS).

METHODS

A tooth model (#16) with a standard class II cavity was prepared, and the complete-arch was scanned using a laboratory scanner (D2000, 3Shape A/S) to obtain a reference scan. Then the typodont was scanned with three IOSs (3Shape TRIOS 3, CEREC Omnicam, and Medit i500) under two rescanning strategies (full-cut and partial-cut), with varying numbers of repeated cut-off and rescanning procedures (0, 1, 3, 5, 7, or 10). The trueness discrepancy between the reference and experimental digital scan was estimated using root mean square (RMS) calculations. Three regions of interest were selected to represent the rescanning, identification, and non-rescan area. And the discrepancies were analyzed using a linear mixed model (α=.05).

RESULTS

Cut-off and rescanning procedures significantly decreased the trueness of digital scans in all test conditions compared to the reference. However, no progressive increase in discrepancy was observed under any rescan conditions. Significant influences on trueness were found based on the IOS used, with the 3Shape system exhibiting lower RMS values. The partial-cut strategy showed lower RMS values compared to the full-cut strategy, albeit without statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

While repeated cut-off and rescanning procedures led to a decline in the quality of digital impressions, they did not result in discrepancy accumulation with repeated rescanning.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

To ensure high scanning accuracy in dental practice, it is advisable to minimize the rescanning area when correcting imperfections in digital scans. Additionally, selecting an appropriate scanner can help mitigate the negative effects of the rescanning technique.

Influence of ambient light conditions on intraoral scanning: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To systematically assess the influence of ambient light on the accuracy and scanning time of intraoral scanning.

STUDY SELECTION

The present systematic review (CRD 42022346672) was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and was performed based on the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020. Electronic searches were conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE, complemented by gray literature, references, and citations of the included studies. The primary outcome was accuracy, and the scanning time was a secondary outcome. Owing to the high heterogeneity, the pooled data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Six in vitro and two in vivo experiments were performed. Three in vitro studies reported both the accuracy and scanning time of the intraoral scans, whereas the remaining studies exclusively evaluated the accuracy. The studies mainly investigated the influence of illumination levels (0-11000 lux) on intraoral scanning. Intraoral scans revealed optimal accuracy at 1000-lux illumination for complete-arch dentition scans, whereas the influence of illumination levels on 4-unit or shorter scans was not clinically significant. The intraoral scans obtained using confocal microscopy were less affected by the illumination levels than those obtained using the active triangulation technique. Furthermore, the scanning time tended to increase with increasing illumination.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidently from the limited number of studies conducted, ambient light illumination had considerable influence on the accuracy and scanning time of intraoral scanning, which appeared to be related to the scanning range and imaging technology.

Does intra-oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full-arch implant-supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to systematically review the studies comparing the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) and conventional implant impressions (CI) in completely edentulous patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL up to December 1, 2023. Clinical studies and in vitro studies reporting the accuracy of digital full arch impressions were included. The primary outcome is the 3-dimensional deviations between the study reference models. A risk of bias assessment was performed for clinical studies. A stratified meta-analysis and a single-armed meta-analysis were conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 49 studies were included, with 8 clinical studies and 41 in vitro studies. For comparison between IOS and conventional impressions, studies were categorized into two groups based on the different measurement methods employed: RMS and CMM. In studies using RMS, the result favored the IOS in the unparalleled situation with the mean difference of -99.29 μm (95% CI: [-141.38, -57.19], I2 = 81%), while the result was opposite with the mean difference of 13.62 μm (95% CI: [10.97, 16.28], I2 = 26%) when implants were paralleled. For different brands of IOS, the accuracy ranged from 76.11 μm (95% CI: [42.36, 109.86]) to 158.63 μm (95% CI: [-14.68, 331.93]).

CONCLUSIONS

Accuracy of intraoral scan is clinically acceptable in edentulous arches, especially for unparalleled implants. More clinical studies are needed to verify the present finding.

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.

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.

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

PURPOSE

To report the means to maximize the predictability and accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans through the evaluation of operator and patient-related factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of published articles related to factors that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans was completed in four data sources:MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science. All studies related to variables that can influence the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs) were considered. These variables included ambient lighting, scanning pattern, implant scan body (ISB) design, techniques for splinting ISBs, arch location, implant position, and inter-implant distance.

RESULTS

Among operator-related factors, ambient lighting conditions, scanning pattern, and ISB design (material, geometry, and retention design) can impact the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal ISB for maximizing IOS accuracy is unclear; however, polymer ISB can wear with multiple reuse and sterilization methods. Among patient-related factors, additional variables should be considered, namely arch (maxillary vs. mandibular arch), implant position in the arch, inter-implant distance, implant depth, and angulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Ambient lighting conditions should be established based on the IOS selected to optimize the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal scanning pattern may vary based on the IOS, clinical situation, and the number of implants. The optimal ISB design may vary depending on the IOS used. Metallic implant scan bodies are preferred over polymer ISB designs to minimize wear due to multiple use and sterilization distortion. Among patient-related factors, additional variables should be considered namely the arch scanned, implant position in the arch, inter-implant distance, implant depth, and angulation. The impact of these factors may vary depending on the IOS selected.

Influence of interdental spaces and the palate on the accuracy of maxillary scans acquired using different intraoral scanners

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of interdental spaces and scanning the palate on the accuracy of maxillary scans acquired using three intraoral scanners (IOSs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A virtual completely dentate maxillary cast without interdental spaces was obtained and modified to create 1, 2, and 3 mm of interdental spacing between the anterior teeth. These three files (reference standard tessellation language files) were used to print three reference casts. The reference casts were scanned using three IOSs: TRIOS4, iTero Element 5D, and Aoralscan2. Three groups were created based on the interdental spaces: 0, 1, 2, and 3 mm (n = 10). The groups were subdivided into two subgroups: no palate (NP subgroup) and palate (P subgroup). The reference STL files were used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by calculating the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Trueness ranged from 91 to 139 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 23 μm among the subgroups tested. A significant correlation was found between IOS*group (p<0.001) and IOS*subgroup ( p<0.001). Tukey test showed significant trueness differences among the interdental spaces tested (p<0.001). The 1- and 2-mm groups obtained better trueness than the 0- and 3-mm groups (p<0.001). An 11 μm mean trueness discrepancy was measured among the different interdental space groups tested. The P subgroups demonstrated significantly higher trueness when compared to the NP subgroups (p<0.001). The discrepancy between the maxillary scans with and without the palate was 4 μm. Significant precision discrepancies were found (p = 0.008), with the iTero group showing the lowest precision.

CONCLUSION

Interdental spaces and incorporation of the palate on maxillary intraoral scans influenced trueness and precision of the three IOSs tested. However, the scanning discrepancy measured may be of no clinical relevance.

Characteristics of intraoral scan bodies and their influence on impression accuracy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the characteristics of intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy of intraoral scanning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library, up to March 2023. The literature search intended to retrieve all relevant clinical and in vitro studies about the effect that the various properties of ISBs may have on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanning. Only publications in English language were selected with animal studies, case reports, case series, technique presentation articles and expert opinions being excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. They were published between 2019 and 2023 and were all in vitro studies. Among the parameters described, the scan body material, position, geometry, height, diameter, and fixation torque were evaluated. The most common materials used for ISBs were polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium alloys. The diameter and position of ISBs seemed to affect the trueness of implant impressions. Subgingival implant position and decreased ISB height affected negatively the trueness of scanning. Geometrical characteristics of ISBs also affect the implant impression accuracy, especially the bevel location and the types of designing modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of the currently used ISBs vary widely and the available scientific evidence is not yet conclusive about the optimal design of ISB. The implant impression accuracy achieved by any of the studied parameters is encouraging. Clinical studies are however necessary for more concrete conclusions.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

ISBs play a vital role in the digital workflow and influence significantly the accuracy and fit of implant restorations. More clinical trials are needed in order to conclude to the optimal characteristics of ISBs which would further enhance the success of the restorations.

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.

Effect of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanners: a meta-analysis of in vitro studies

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate whether the accuracy of intraoral scanners is influenced by different scanning strategies in an in vitro setting, through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 standard. The following PICOS approach was used: population, tooth impressions; intervention, the use of intraoral scanners with scanning strategies different from the manufacturer's instructions; control, the use of intraoral scanners following the manufacturers' requirements; outcome, accuracy of intraoral scanners; type of studies, in vitro. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across various databases including Embase, SciELO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria were based on in vitro studies that reported the accuracy of digital impressions using intraoral scanners. Analysis was performed using Review Manager software (version 5.3.5; Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Global comparisons were made using a standardized mean difference based on random-effect models, with a significance level of α = 0.05.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 15 articles. Digital impression accuracy significantly improved under dry conditions (P < 0.001). Moreover, trueness and precision were enhanced when artificial landmarks were used (P ≤ 0.02) and when an S-shaped pattern was followed (P ≤ 0.01). However, the type of light used did not have a significant impact on the accuracy of the digital intraoral scanners (P ≥ 0.16).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of digital intraoral scanners can be enhanced by employing scanning processes using artificial landmarks and digital impressions under dry conditions.

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.

Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of digital and conventional implant impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

PURPOSE

To compare the trueness and precision of different impression techniques for two-implant-supported fixed dental prostheses between extraoral and intraoral conditions at different locations.

METHODS

Six volunteers participated in this study. A resin block with two parallel analogs was fabricated as an implant site simulator (ISS). The ISS was bonded to a molded ethylene vinyl acetate sheet to create a reference model. For each participant, four reference models were prepared based on the locations of the ISSs: maxillary posterior/anterior region (MaxP/MaxA) and mandibular posterior/anterior region (ManP/ManA). Five impressions were taken extraorally using the open-tray (conventional implant impression technique, CIT) and intraoral scanning (digital implant impression technique, DIT) techniques. The reference models were positioned in the participants' mouths, and impressions were obtained intraorally using the CIT and DIT. The interanalog distance (d) and angulation (θ) were measured to calculate trueness (Δd, Δθ) and precision (dP, θP). Two-way ANOVA and t tests were performed (α=0.05).

RESULTS

For the DIT, under intraoral conditions, the Δd and Δθ in MaxP and Δθ in ManP were significantly higher than those under extraoral conditions. For the CIT, under intraoral conditions, the Δd and Δθ in ManA and ManP and Δθ in MaxP were significantly lower than those under extraoral conditions. No significant differences in the dP and θP of either DIT or CIT were observed between the two conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoral conditions affected the trueness of DIT and CIT in different regions but had no influence on precision.

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of the dental arch and cutting-off and rescanning procedures on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans in partially edentulous arches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary and a mandibular partially edentulous typodont with implant abutment analogs placed in the right and left first molar and right central incisor sites were digitized to create reference models by using an industrial optical scanner (7 Series Desktop Scanner; Dentalwings). Two experimental groups were scanned using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 4; 3Shape A/S): the Maxillary group (Mx) and the Mandibular group (Mb). Four subgroups were generated depending on the number of rescanned mesh holes: No holes (Mx-G0, Mb-G0), 1 hole (Mx-G1, Mb-G1), 2 holes (Mx-G2, Mb-G2) and 3 holes (Mx-G3, Mb-G3). A 3-dimensional metrology software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems) was used to measure the difference between the reference and the experimental scans computing the root mean square (RMS) error calculation. Two-way ANOVA and a post-hoc Tukey test were used to analyze the trueness data (α=0.05). Levene test was used to evaluate the prevision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The Mx group obtained a trueness mean value of 54 ± 17 µm and a mean precision value of 54 ± 17 µm, while the Mb group presented a trueness mean value of 67 ± 23 µm and a mean precision value of 66 ± 22 µm. The Mx group demonstrated significantly better trueness than the Mb group (P<.001). The G0 and G1 subgroups had the highest trueness values among the subgroups tested. No significant difference was observed between G0 and G1, G1 and G2, and G2 and G3 subgroups in trueness and precision. However, the G0 had significantly better trueness and precision values compared to G2 and G3 subgroups. In addition, the G1 had significantly better trueness values than the G3 subgroup. However, the Levene test revealed no difference in the precision mean values among the subgroups tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant scanning trueness was affected by the dental arch and the number of rescanned mesh holes using the IOS tested. A higher number of rescanned mesh holes decreased the scanning trueness. The stitching algorithm of the IOS software tested after the mesh hole scan demonstrated a significant error, especially when multiples mesh holes are involved in the same arch.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Given that cutting-off and rescanning techniques can reduce trueness, clinicians should consider whether these techniques are necessary in complete digital workflows. This is particularly important when fabricating multiple single implant-supported restorations in the same arch.

Effect of relative humidity on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of dentate complete arch intraoral digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Intraoral scanners (IOSs) have been used in dentistry for diagnostic and treatment purposes; however, the influence of environmental factors such as humidity or temperature on the accuracy of intraoral scanning is uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of relative humidity and ambient temperature on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of dentate complete arch intraoral digital scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A completely dentate mandibular typodont was digitized by using a dental laboratory scanner. Four calibrated spheres were attached following the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 20 896. A watertight box was designed to simulate 4 different relative humidity conditions (50%, 70%, 80%, and 90%) (n = 30). An IOS (TRIOS 3) was used to obtain a total of 120 complete arch digital scans (n = 120). Scanning time and number of photograms of each specimen were recorded. All the scans were exported and compared with the master cast by using a reverse engineering software program. The linear distances among the reference spheres were used to calculate trueness and precision. A unifactorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Levene tests followed by the post hoc Bonferroni test were used to analyze trueness and precision data, respectively. A unifactorial ANOVA followed by a post hoc Bonferroni test was also conducted to analyze scanning time and the number of photogram data.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found in trueness, precision, number of photograms, and scanning time (P<.05). Regarding trueness and precision, significant differences were found between the 50% and 70% relative humidity groups and the 80% and 90% relative humidity groups (P<.01). Regarding scanning time and number of photograms, significant differences were obtained among all groups, except between the 80% and 90% relative humidity groups (P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The relative humidity conditions tested influenced accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms in complete arch intraoral digital scans. High relative humidity conditions resulted in the decreased scanning accuracy, longer scanning time, and greater number of photograms of complete arch intraoral digital scans.

Influence of type of restorative materials and surface wetness conditions on intraoral scanning accuracy

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of different restorative materials and surface wetness on intraoral scanning accuracy.

METHODS

Reference casts with an extracted second premolar and first and second molar were digitized (L2). Four groups were established according to the material of the first molar: natural tooth (control), zirconia (Z), lithium disilicate (LD), and nanoceramic resin crown (NC). Four subgroups were developed: dry, low-, mild-, and high-wetness subgroups (n=15). All the scans were completed by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). In the control-dry subgroup, the reference cast was dry. In the control-low subgroup, artificial saliva was sprayed with a 1 mL/min volumetric flow for 4 seconds. In the control-mild and control-high subgroups, the same procedures as in the control-low subgroup were performed, but with a volumetric flow of 4 and of 8 mL/min, respectively. In the Z, LD and NC groups, each crown was fabricated with its respective material. Trueness was analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Bonferroni tests. The Levene and Bonferroni tests were used to assess precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Material (P<.001) and wetness (P<.001) significantly influenced trueness and precision. The mild and high subgroups revealed lower trueness and precision compared with the dry and low subgroups. The control, Z, and LD groups under dry and low wetness conditions showed better trueness compared with the NC group, but the materials tested had no significant precision discrepancies. Under mild wetness conditions, all the materials showed no significant trueness discrepancies. Under high wetness conditions, the LD group demonstrated the best trueness and precision.

CONCLUSIONS

The restorative materials and surface wetness tested influenced scanning trueness and precision of the IOS assessed.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Dried surfaces are recommended to maximize the scanning accuracy values of the IOS tested. Overall, the presence of saliva can reduce the performance of the IOS tested.

Reverse impression technique: A fully digital protocol for the fabrication of the definitive fixed prosthesis for completely edentulous patients

In complete arch implant rehabilitation, one of the greatest difficulties still encountered in the digital workflow is the deviation of the implant position during intraoral scanner (IOS) data acquisition. As a result, the passivity of a definitive prosthesis fabricated using IOS data might be compromised. Thus, an implant position verification method is essential, either digitally or conventionally executed. A fully digital protocol for the fabrication of the definitive fixed prosthesis for completely edentulous patients, without the interference of any conventional step within the digital process, is presented. For the verification of the captured position of the scan-bodies, novel scan analogs were connected to the interim prosthesis extraorally and scanned. The virtual superimposition of the interim prosthesis intraorally with the same prosthesis extraorally served as a verification device for the position of the implants.