Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: A systematic review

In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch conventional implant impressions using two different materials (A-silicone and polyether) to full-arch digital implant impressions produced from two intraoral scanning devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A master model was fabricated representing an edentulous mandible with four implants with internal connection placed at the sites of canines and first molars. The anterior implants were parallel to the residual ridge, while the two posterior implants had an angulation of 15° to the distal and 15° to the lingual respectively. The conventional technique was performed with open-tray of non-splinted impression copings. Two different impression materials were used, A-silicone and polyether at monophase medium body consistencies. The digital impressions were obtained with the use of two different intraoral scanners, after the connection of scan bodies. A total of 10 impressions were produced for each of the four experimental groups. The conventional models as well as the master model were digitized using a high-resolution laboratory scanner. The STL files of the models and of the intraoral impressions were imported in a powerful superimposition software, for the conduction of measurements in pairs of files. The software calculated the 3D deviations, as well as the linear and angular displacements among scan bodies at the digital files. For "trueness" measurements every STL file of each experimental group was superimposed to the digital master model, while for "precision" measurements all STL files of each experimental group were superimposed to each other.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of full arch mandibular implant impressions was influenced both by the impression technique used (conventional vs. digital) and the impression material used (A-silicone vs. polyether) or the intraoral scanner used (Trios vs. Heron). In terms of "trueness," A-silicone showed the highest impression accuracy with the lowest deviation values, followed by polyether and Trios, but the differences between the three groups were in the majority not statistically significant. Heron showed statistically lower accuracy results in all measurements compared to the other groups. In terms of "precision", conventional impressions with the use of A-Silicone or polyether were statistically significantly superior to digital impressions with either scanner. A-Silicone and polyether showed no statistically significant difference between them.

Digital workflow for definitive immediately loaded complete arch CAD-CAM implant-supported prosthesis in 3 appointments without using intraoral scanning

This article presents a rapid technique for the accurate transfer of implant positions immediately after image-guided surgery to enable the immediate installation of a definitive complete arch implant-supported prosthesis with an implant biological width of 3 mm within 3 appointments. A sleeveless copy of the implant surgical guide is magnetically connected to a reference guide to ensure the accurate capture of cylindrical titanium transfer abutments. In the laboratory, the sleeveless guide with the splinted transfer abutments attached is used to generate a definitive cast to be scanned with a desktop scanner. The resulting digital definitive cast is then combined with the original meshes of the prosthetically driven virtual treatment plan to enable a definitive computer-aided design and computer-aided manufactured prosthesis to be fabricated and installed with passive fit.

Influence of scanning protocol on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

This in-vitro study assessed the influence of two intraoral scanning (IOS) protocols on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of digital scans performed in edentulous arches.

METHODS

Twenty-two abutment-level master casts of edentulous arches with at least four implants were scanned repeatedly five times, each with two different scanning protocols. Protocol A (IOS-A) consisted of scanning the edentulous arch before inserting the implant scan bodies, followed by their insertion and its subsequent digital acquisition. Protocol B (IOS-B) consisted of scanning the edentulous arch with the scan bodies inserted from the outset. A reference scan from each edentulous cast was obtained using a laboratory scanner. Trueness and precision were calculated using the spatial fit analysis, cross-arch distance, and virtual Sheffield test. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations (GEEs). Statistical significance was set at α = .05.

RESULTS

In the spatial fit test, the precision of average 3D distances was 45 μm (±23 μm) with protocol IOS-A and 25 μm (±10 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001), and the trueness of average 3D distances was 44 μm (±24 μm) with protocol IOS-A and 24 μm (±7 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001). Cross-arch distance precision was 59 μm (±53 μm) for IOS-A and 41 μm (±43 μm) for IOS-B (p = .0035), and trueness was 64 μm (±47 μm) for IOS-A and 50 μm (±40 μm) for IOS-B (p = .0021). Virtual Sheffield precision was 286 μm (±198 μm) for IOS-A and 146 μm (±92 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001), and trueness was 228 μm (±171 μm) for IOS-A and 139 μm (±92 μm) for IOS-B (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The IOS-B protocol demonstrated significantly superior accuracy. Placement of scan bodies before scanning the edentulous arch is recommended to improve the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scanning.

Effect of implant scan body geometric modifications on the trueness and scanning time of complete arch intraoral implant digital scans: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The effect of the surface geometry of implant scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy and scanning time of complete arch implant digital scans remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether geometric modifications on implant scan bodies (nonmodified, subtractively modified, and additively modified ISBs) affect the trueness and scanning time of complete arch intraoral implant digital scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A completely edentulous maxillary cast with 2 anterior parallel and two 17-degree posteriorly tilted implant abutment analogs was prepared. A digitized reference was created from this cast with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (CARES Mono Scanbody for screw-retained abutment) ISBs by using a desktop scanner (E3). Three different groups were created: nonmodified (NM group), subtractively modified (SM group), and additively modified (AM group). For the NM group, no modifications were made to the ISBs. For the SM group, 4 round-shaped grooves were created on the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal sides. For the AM group, PEEK beads were printed and cemented on the same areas of the ISB of the SM group. Fifteen consecutive scans were captured with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) for each group, and the scanning time was recorded. By using a metrology software program, scans of each group were superimposed on the reference file to determine the 3D surface, linear, and angular position discrepancies of each ISB. Repeated-measures analyses of variance followed by univariate analysis and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were performed to analyze the data (α=.05). To compare the mean time among groups, 1-way analysis of variance was performed followed by the Tukey post hoc tests.

RESULTS

Significant 3D surface, linear, and angular position discrepancies were found when measuring trueness among the NM, SM, and AM groups (P<.001). Discrepancies in 3D surface deviation were highest for the AM group (0.266 ±0.030 mm), and the lowest mean angular deviation values were for the SM group (0.993 ±0.062 degrees). However, the mean scanning time was not significantly different among the groups tested (P=.237).

CONCLUSIONS

For complete arch intraoral implant digital scans, subtractive modifications on ISBs enhanced scanning trueness, while additive modifications on ISBs decreased scanning trueness. However, implant scan body geometric modifications did not affect scanning time.

Enhancing Precision and Efficiency in Fabricating Complete Arch Screw-Retained Implant Prosthesis: A Clinical Case Report Utilizing the Nexus iOS Scan Gauge System

Achieving an accurate fit in a complete arch screw-retained implant prosthesis is paramount, regardless of whether analog or digital impressions are employed. In the context of complete arch implant prostheses, using intraoral scanners has sparked significant debate. However, recent advancements in scanner technology, specialized scan gauges meticulously calibrated for precise recording, and the implementation of appropriate scanning techniques have substantially improved the precision and accuracy of digital records. The Nexus iOS scan gauge system represents a pioneering approach, seamlessly integrating these optimization strategies into a purely digital workflow to fabricate complete arch screw-retained implant prostheses in edentulous patients. This case report elucidates the fabrication process of a complete arch screw-retained implant prosthesis that exhibited remarkable fitting accuracy and streamlined the treatment process to a mere 3 appointments. The patient reported high satisfaction with the efficient timeline, aesthetic appeal, and functional performance of the prosthesis. A distinctive advantage of this technique is the notable reduction in treatment steps compared to traditional procedures.

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.

An overview of artificial intelligence based applications for assisting digital data acquisition and implant planning procedures

OBJECTIVES

To provide an overview of the current artificial intelligence (AI) based applications for assisting digital data acquisition and implant planning procedures.

OVERVIEW

A review of the main AI-based applications integrated into digital data acquisitions technologies (facial scanners (FS), intraoral scanners (IOSs), cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) devices, and jaw trackers) and computer-aided static implant planning programs are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

The main AI-based application integrated in some FS's programs involves the automatic alignment of facial and intraoral scans for virtual patient integration. The AI-based applications integrated into IOSs programs include scan cleaning, assist scanning, and automatic alignment between the implant scan body with its corresponding CAD object while scanning. The more frequently AI-based applications integrated into the programs of CBCT units involve positioning assistant, noise and artifacts reduction, structures identification and segmentation, airway analysis, and alignment of facial, intraoral, and CBCT scans. Some computer-aided static implant planning programs include patient's digital files, identification, labeling, and segmentation of anatomical structures, mandibular nerve tracing, automatic implant placement, and surgical implant guide design.

Digital articulation of a complete arch fixed implant prosthesis using the implant prosthetic connections: A dental technique

A method for the digital articulation of complete arch digital implant scans using the implant abutment prosthetic interfaces is described. This technique provides an effective and efficient method for articulating digital scans without the need for matching soft tissue references or fiduciary markers. This allows for a streamlined workflow with fewer intraoral scans and can provide a precise replication of the intaglio surface and emergence profile of an existing restoration.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effect of different fabrication workflows on the passive fit of screw-retained bar splinting two interforaminal implants: a parallel blinded randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

To clinically compare the effect of the conventional and the digital workflows on the passive fit of a screw retained bar splinting two inter-foraminal implants.

METHODS

The current study was designed to be a parallel triple blinded randomised clinical trial. Thirty six completely edentulous patients were selected and simply randomized into two groups; conventional group (CG) and digital group (DG). The participants, investigator and outcome assessor were blinded. In the group (CG), the bar was constructed following a conventional workflow in which an open top splinted impression and a lost wax casting technology were used. However, in group (DG), a digital workflow including a digital impression and a digital bar milling technology was adopted. Passive fit of each bar was then evaluated clinically by applying the screw resistance test using the "flag" technique in the passive and non passive situations. The screw resistance test parameter was also calculated. Unpaired t-test was used for intergroup comparison. P-value < 0.05 was the statistical significance level. The study protocol was reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee in the author's university (Rec IM051811). Registration of the clinical trial was made on clinical trials.gov ID NCT05770011. An informed consent was obtained from all participants.

RESULTS

Non statistically significant difference was denoted between both groups in all situations. In the passive situation, the mean ± standard deviation values were 1789.8° ± 20.7 and1786.1° ± 30.7 for the groups (CG) and (DG) respectively. In the non passive situation, they were 1572.8° ± 54.2 and 1609.2° ± 96.9. Regarding the screw resistance test parameter, they were 217° ± 55.3 and 176° ± 98.8.

CONCLUSION

Conventional and digital fabrication workflows had clinically comparable effect on the passive fit of screw retained bar attachments supported by two dental implants.

Altered reverse impression method involving extraoral digitalization of a verification jig for the fabrication of implant-supported prosthesis by using a complete-digital workflow

The reverse impression method involves the extraoral digitalization of the interim implant-supported prostheses and intraoral digitalization of antagonist arch and maxillomandibular relationship. This technique allows the fabrication of implant-supported prostheses by using a complete-digital workflow. The scan analogs make the reverse impression method feasible. However, this method may not be recommended if the interim polymethyl methacrylate prosthesis does not have passive fit. The present manuscript describes an altered reverse impression technique that involves the extraoral digitalization of a conventional verification jig, which has attached scan analogs. With this technique modification, the implant positions captured using the verification jig are used to obtain the virtual definitive implant cast and fabricate the definitive implant-supported prosthesis.

Novel complete-arch pillar system (CAPS) to register implant position and maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit

OBJECTIVES

This article presents a novel complete-arch pillar system (CAPS) to register implant position and maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit for implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The novel system presents a 3-unit toolset comprising intraoral scan bodies (ISBs), lateral pillar attachments (LPAs) and occlusal pillar attachments (OPAs). A 2-stage single visit workflow by an intraoral scanner (Trios 5) was introduced. The first stage "Screw-Scan-Done" was used to describe complete-arch intraoral implant scanning using LPAs. The second stage "Screw-Occlude-Done" involved virtual occlusal recording using OPAs. Two patients with one single edentulous arch were selected for this study. In the first patient, 6 bone level implants (Bone Level Tapered, Straumann) were placed in the edentulous maxilla at positions 12, 14, 16, 22, 24 and 26. In the second patient, 4 bone level implants (NobelActive CC, Nobel Biocare) were placed in the edentulous mandible at positions 32, 35, 42 and 45. A CAD-CAM procedure was initiated with the acquired IOS data to fabricate an interim IFCDP at the same day. Periapical radiographs were obtained of the implant-prosthetic connection of the definitive IFCDPs to verify the passive fit. Metrology software (Geomagic Qualify, 3D Systems - Matlab, Mathworks) was used to assess the implant analogs position in the 3D-printed casts used for fabricating the definitive IFCDPs. A quantitative occlusal relationship analysis was performed with IOS.

RESULTS

Radiographic examination revealed no gaps at implant-prosthetic connection of the definitive IFCDPs. The 3D-printed casts showed an overall average distance deviation within the clinically acceptable range of errors of 150 µm. Quantitative occlusal relationship analysis with IOS showed well-distributed contacts.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) A 3-unit toolset with ISBs, LPAs and OPAs allows to register the implant position and maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit; (2) the 2-stage clinical workflow with the CAPS system facilitates the IOS data acquisition for fabrication of an interim IFCDP at the same day; (3) a passive fit was demonstrated for the interim and the definitive IFCDPs.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The CAPS system can help clinicians to register the implant position and the maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit for the fabrication of an IFCDP.

Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of intraoral scanning coverage (IOSC) on digital implant impression accuracy in various partially edentulous situations and predict the optimal IOSC.

METHODS

Five types of resin models were fabricated, each simulating single or multiple tooth loss scenarios with inserted implants and scan bodies. IOSC was subgrouped to cover two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve teeth, as well as full arch. Each group underwent ten scans. A desktop scanner served as the reference. Accuracy was evaluated by measuring the Root mean square error (RMSE) values of scan bodies. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to predict the optimal IOSC with different edentulous situations. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.

RESULTS

For single-tooth-missing situations, in anterior sites, significantly better accuracy was observed in groups with IOSC ranging from four teeth to full arch (p < 0.05). In premolar sites, IOSC spanning four to six teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05), while in molar sites, groups with IOSC encompassing two to eight teeth exhibited better accuracy (p < 0.05). For multiple-teeth-missing situations, IOSC covering four, six, and eight teeth, as well as full arch showed better accuracy in anterior gaps (p < 0.05). In posterior gaps, IOSC of two, four, six or eight teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05). The CNN predicted distinct optimal IOSC for different edentulous scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant impression accuracy can be significantly impacted by IOSC in different partially edentulous situations. The selection of IOSC should be customized to the specific dentition defect condition.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The number of teeth scanned can significantly affect digital implant impression accuracy. For missing single or four anterior teeth, scan at least four or six neighboring teeth is acceptable. In lateral cases, two neighboring teeth may suffice, but extending over ten teeth, including contralateral side, might deteriorate the scan.

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

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Obtaining more accurate complete arch implant digital scans with the aid of a geometric pattern: A dental technique

A technique to obtain more accurate complete arch implant digital scans and virtual casts is described. In order to obtain complete arch implant digital scans with greater accuracy, short-span intraoral digital scans are superimposed with the aid of a geometric pattern. Therefore, the technique takes advantage of the accuracy of intraoral scanners to obtain digital scans of reduced spans. Two virtual designs of the geometric pattern have been made available online: one for maxillary arches and one for mandibular arches. From these virtual designs, new virtual designs of geometric patterns of different sizes and shapes can be created to better fit different arch forms and implant positions.

Influence of connected and nonconnected calibrated frameworks on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using four intraoral scanners, a desktop scanner, and a photogrammetry system

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Different techniques have been proposed for increasing the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs), including a calibrated metal framework (IOSFix); however, its accuracy remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of complete arch scans obtained with connecting and non-connecting the implant scan bodies (ISBs) recorded using intraoral scanners (IOSs), a laboratory scanner (LBS), and photogrammetry (PG).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cast with 6 implant abutment analogs was obtained. Six groups were created: TRIOS 4, i700, iTero, CS3800, LBS, and PG groups. The IOSs and LBS groups were divided into 3 subgroups: nonconnected ISBs (ISB), splinted ISBs (SSB), and calibrated framework (CF), (n=15). For the ISB subgroups, an ISB was positioned on each implant abutment analog. For the SSB subgroups, a printed framework was used to connect the ISBs. For the CF subgroups, a calibrated framework (IOSFix) was used to connect the ISBs. For the PG group, scans were captured using a PG (PIC Camera). Implant positions of the reference cast were measured using a coordinate measurement machine, and Euclidean distances were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies using the same distances obtained on each experimental scan. Wilcoxon squares 2-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Linear and angular discrepancies were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001). Linear (P=.008) and angular (P<.001) precision differences were found among the subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

The digitizing method and technique impacted the trueness and precision of the implant scans. The photogrammetry and calibrated framework groups obtained the best accuracy. Except for TRIOS 4, the calibrated framework method improved the accuracy of the scans obtained by using the IOSs tested.

A comparative analysis of the passivity of fit of complete arch implant-supported frameworks fabricated using different acquisition techniques

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in recording edentulous jaws has improved recently. However, improvement in accuracy does not necessarily imply the clinical validity of the scans, and limited information is available regarding the manufacture of passively fitting prostheses.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to analyze the passivity of complete arch screw-retained frameworks fabricated using different acquisition techniques.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A 3-dimensional maxillary edentulous model to receive all-on-4 screw-retained frameworks was prototyped. Eighteen polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) frameworks were fabricated with a 5-axis milling machine and divided into 3 groups according to the acquisition technique (n=6): scanned by using an IOS (CEREC Primescan; Dentsply Sirona), scanned with the aid of an auxiliary device by using the same IOS, and by using a conventional impression and then scanning the stone cast with an extraoral scanner (EOS). The passivity of fit of the frameworks was tested with the 1-screw test, the terminal screw of the framework assembly was tightened on the multiunit abutment (MUA), and the vertical marginal gap (µm) was measured at the other 3 framework-to-abutment interfaces by using a digital microscope at ×40 magnification. A modification to the 1-screw test was analyzed by tightening all screws and then unscrewing all except 1 of the anterior abutments. Data were explored for normality by using the theoretical quantile-quantile (Q-Q) plots and the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality. The Friedman test compared data between the different acquisition techniques; the tightening methods and locations (buccal and palatal) were used as the block variable. The post hoc Dunn test was used when the Friedman test was significant. The Kruksal-Wallis test compared the data from the 2 groups of the tightening methods and the 2 location groups. The aligned rank transformation (ART) ANOVA test was used for the interaction effects among the 3 variables. A multiway ANOVA was applied to the ranked data. (α=.05 for all tests).

RESULTS

Significant differences were found among all groups (P<.001). Regarding the passivity of fit, the mean vertical marginal gap was 50 µm for frameworks fabricated from an intraoral scan with the aid of an auxiliary device, 62 µm for frameworks fabricated by using an IOS, and 140 µm for frameworks fabricated by using an EOS. No significant difference was found among all groups regarding the tightening method (P=.355) or location measured (P=.175).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital scanning with the aid of an auxiliary device resulted in the best fit; however, digital approaches with or without the auxiliary device resulted in a more accurate fit with a smaller marginal gap than with the conventional impression.

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.

Improving the accuracy of complete arch implant intraoral digital scans by using horizontal scan bodies with occlusal geometry: A dental technique

A technique to improve the accuracy of complete arch implant intraoral digital scans and to obtain more accurate virtual casts with them is described. First, 2 complete arch intraoral digital scans were obtained with an intraoral scanner: a multiunit abutment digital scan and an implant digital scan with reusable horizontal intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) placed on the implants. These were previously created by combining the conventional ISBs compatible with the patient's implants with extensional structures with occlusal geometry. Once the digital scans had been acquired, the position of the implants was obtained by superimposing a virtual design of the conventional ISB onto each horizontal ISB of the complete arch implant digital scan. Finally, the virtual cast was obtained by superimposing the complete arch multiunit abutment digital scan on the complete arch implant digital scan.

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 scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions using seven different scanbodies and four intraoral scanners. A 3D-printed maxillary model with six implants and their respective multi-unit abutments was used for this study. Seven scanbodies (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB4, SB5, SB6, and SB7) and four intraoral scanners (Primescan®, Omnican®, Trios 3®, and Trios 4®) were assessed. Each combination group was scanned ten times and a dental lab scanner (D2000, 3Shape) was used as a reference. All scans were exported as STL files, imported into Convince software (3Shape) for alignment, and later into Blender software, where their 3D positions were analyzed using a Python script. The 3D deviation, angular deviation, and linear distance between implants #3 and #14 were also measured. Accuracy was measured in terms of "trueness" (scanbody 3D deviation between intraoral scan and desktop scan). Kruskal-Wallis followed by the Bonferroni correction was used to analyze the data (⍺ = .05). The study found statistically significant differences in digital impression accuracy among the scanners and scanbodies (p<0.001). When comparing different intraoral scanners, the Primescan system showed the smallest 3D deviation (median 110.59 μm) and differed statistically from the others, while Trios 4 (median 122.35 μm) and Trios 3 (median 130.62 μm) did not differ from each other (p = .284). No differences were found in the linear distance between implants #3 and #14 between Trios 4, Primescan, and Trios 3 systems. When comparing different scanbodies, the lowest median values for 3D deviation were obtained by SB2 (72.27μm) and SB7 (93.31μm), and they did not differ from each other (p = .116). The implant scanbody and intraoral scanner influenced the accuracy of digital impressions on completely edentulous arches.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) impressions of implant-supported restorations in in vivo studies.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search and review of studies on the accuracy of IOS implant impressions were conducted to analyze the peer-reviewed literature published between 1989 and August 2023. The bias analysis was performed by two reviewers. Data on the study characteristics, accuracy outcomes, and related variables were extracted. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials was performed to investigate the impact of IOS on peri-implant crestal bone loss and the time involved in the impression procedure.

RESULTS

Ten in vivo studies were included in this systematic review for final analysis. Six studies investigated the trueness of IOS impressions, but did not reach the same conclusions. One study assessed the precision of IOS impressions for a single implant. Four clinical studies examined the accuracy of IOS implant impressions with a follow-up of 1-2 years. In full arches, IOS impression procedure needed significantly less time than conventional one (mean difference for procedure time was 8.59 min [6.78, 10.40 min], P < 0.001), prosthetic survival rate was 100%, and marginal bone levels of all participants could be stably maintained (mean difference in marginal bone loss at 12 months was 0.03 mm [-0.08, 0.14 mm], P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of IOS impressions of implant-supported restorations varied greatly depending on the scanning strategy. The trueness and precision of IOS in the partial and complete arches remain unclear and require further assessment. Based on follow-up clinical studies, IOS impressions were accurate in clinical practice. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as some evidences are obtained from the same research group.

Reverse scan body: The scan pattern affects the fit of complete-arch prototype prostheses

PURPOSE

To assess the effect of different scan patterns on the fit of implant-supported complete-arch prototype prostheses fabricated via a complete digital extraoral protocol with a reverse scan body.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mandibular cast with four multi-unit abutment (MUA) implant analogs with adequate antero-posterior spread served as the reference cast, simulating a common clinical patient situation, and a polymethylmethacrylate interim screw-retained prosthesis was fabricated on it. Novel reverse scan bodies were connected to the interim prosthesis on the intaglio of the MUA abutments and extraoral scanning was performed with a white light intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4; 3 shape) and three different scan patterns: starting from the occlusal surface of the interim prosthesis (O-group), starting from the intaglio (I-group), and helix pattern (H-group).  The resulting STL files from the three groups were then imported to computer-aided design (CAD) software and after the digital design, the STL files were exported to a computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) milling machine which generated a total of 15 CAD-CAM milled prototype prostheses per group. Two clinicians assessed the fit of each digitally fabricated prototype prosthesis on the reference cast, utilizing the screw-resistance test and radiographic evaluation. Fisher's exact test was used to test the difference between the three groups, and Cohen's k-score was used to assess the inter-examiner agreement.

RESULTS

Out of the three different groups, the O-group scan pattern led to 100% prosthesis fit, while the prototype prostheses generated from I- and H-groups had 80% and 53% fit, respectively. The results were statistically significant (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Occlusal scan pattern leads to fitting milled prototype prostheses after extraoral scanning with reverse scan bodies without intraoral implant data acquisition.

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.

The accuracy of intra-oral scanners in full arch implant rehabilitation: a narrative review

This narrative review aims to study the accuracy of different intra-oral scanner (IOS) devices already available on the market. The accuracy emerged during in vitro, in vivo and ex vivo studies made with IOS devices during the scan of a full arch implant rehabilitation that have been analysed to evaluate which device may be the most suitable in this clinical situation. The literature review was performed by searching topics and keywords using the PubMed and Medline databases, for example, 'digital workflow', 'full arch', 'full arch implant rehabilitation' and 'accuracy of IOS'. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for studies were: correct IMRAD (introduction, methods, results and discussion) structure; article with clear and detailed objectives; consistency of the articles with the purpose of the review; two-year range from the year of publication of the article; reproducible materials and methods; and correct follow-up. Most of the intra-oral scanners employed in vitro provided acceptable accuracy (below a threshold of 150 μm). The main parameters identified for their influence on precision were interim plant distance, body scan design, scanning pattern and operator experience. Even though literature is limited, significant differences emerged between the different models of intra-oral scanners evaluated in the studies considered within this review.

Impact of color temperature and illuminance of ambient light conditions on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the present study was to assess the influence of color temperature and illuminance of ambient light on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in complete-arch implant scans.

METHODS

An edentulous model with six implants and scan bodies was digitized by using a laboratory scanner (DW-7-140; Dental Wings) to obtain a reference mesh. Fifteen scans were performed employing two intraoral scanners (Trios 4;3Shape A/S and i700; Medit Co) at two illuminances (500 and 1000 lux) and three color temperatures (3200, 4400, and 5600 K). Scanning accuracy was measured by using a 3D metrology software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis, one-way ANOVA, and pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).

RESULTS

Significant differences in trueness and precision values were found among the different IOSs under the same ambient lighting condition and among the different lighting conditions for a given IOS (p < .05) except for trueness in i700 groups (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The influence on the accuracy of color temperature and illuminance varied depending on the intraoral scanner. An optimal ambient scanning light condition was not found; this should be adjusted based on the specific IOS system used. 3200 K of ambient light influences the precision of i700 when performed at 1000 lux, decreasing the accuracy. The variation of color temperature at the same illuminance does not affect the scanning accuracy of TRIOS 4, which obtained better accuracy in all scans at 1000 lux.

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

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Accuracy of 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.

Effect of novel prefabricated auxiliary devices attaching to scan bodies on the accuracy of intraoral scanning of complete-arch with multiple implants: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of novel prefabricated auxiliary devices with different geometric features called Scan Body Clasp (SBC) at different levels on the accuracy of intraoral scanning of complete-arch with multiple implants.

METHODS

An edentulous maxilla 4-implant model and SBCs with different geometric features (flat or curved) were fabricated by a 3D printer (AccuFab-C1s, 3DShining, Hangzhou, China). Test scans were performed using an intraoral scanner (Aoralscan 3, 3DShining, Hangzhou, China) software version 1.0.0.3104 under different scenarios: group A (CO), without any SBCs; group B&C (LC&HC), with curved SBCs adjacent to and away from the mucosa; group D&E (LF&HF), with flat SBCs adjacent to and away from the mucosa. 20 scans were done for each group (CO, LC, HC, LF and HF). Reference Scans were obtained by digitizing the model in group A using a dental laboratory scanner (D2000, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). The related files were imported into inspection software for trueness and precision assessment. Statistical analysis was performed with One-way ANOVA, Independent-Sample T test for trueness values. Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test were used to assess the precision values. The level of significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

Groups with SBCs demonstrated trueness enhancement, among which LF revealed the best trueness. Significant differences were also found between LF and HC (p < .01), LF and HF (p < .001), LC and HF (p < .01). LF and HF showed precision enhancement. The best precision was LF, which was found to be more precise than LC (p < .001) and HC (p < .001). HF was more precise than LC (p < .001) and HC (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Attaching the scan bodies with SBCs at different levels significantly influenced the scanning accuracy. The SBCs near the mucosa result in superior trueness, while the flat morphology benefits the precision.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The results demonstrated the feasibility of the SBCs in enhancing intraoral complete-arch implant scanning accuracy. Among the configurations tested in the present study, low-level and flat surfaces of the artificial landmarks may be the potential pivotal elements to optimizing long-span scanning accuracy.

Fabrication of a reverse-engineered custom scan body as a digital solution for recording implant position: A dental technique

A technique for the reverse engineering of the implant-abutment connection to fabricate a custom scan body is described. The implant-abutment connection was designed using the exocad software program, the scan body with screw channel was designed with the Blender software program, and the file was either 3-dimensionally printed in definitive tooth-colored resin with ceramic filler material or milled in polyetheretherketone (PEEK). This technique offers an accurate, cost-effective digital solution for implant optical scanning that can replace prefabricated scan bodies that may not be available for all implants. (J Prosthet Dent xxxx;xxx:xxx-xxx).

Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported prostheses are technique-sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer an alternative to conventional impression making.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete arch implant scans and to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks fabricated with SPG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Laboratory scanning of gypsum casts, SPG, and IOS were performed for all participants. The data regarding the abutment platform were superimposed to calculate the 3D deviation of SPG and IOS compared with that of laboratory scanning as an evaluation of accuracy. The effect of implant position and number on accuracy was analyzed. The more accurate technique between SPG and IOS was used to fabricate the titanium frameworks, as was laboratory scanning. The passive fit of the frameworks was assessed by clinical examination, the Sheffield test, and panoramic radiography.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants (21 arches, 120 implants) were included. The accuracy of SPG ranged from 2.70 μm to 92.80 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 17.00 (11.68, 22.50) μm, which was significantly more accurate than that of IOS, ranging from 21.30 μm to 815.60 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 48.95 (34.78, 75.88) μm. No significant correlation was found between position or number of implants and 3D deviation in the SPG group. A weak positive correlation was found between implant number and 3D deviation in the IOS group. SPG and laboratory scanning were used to fabricate titanium frameworks. The passive fit between the frameworks and abutment platforms was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

SPG, which was not affected by position or number of implants, was more accurate than IOS and comparable with laboratory scanning. The frameworks fabricated based on SPG and laboratory scanning were comparable in their passive fit. The SPG technique may be an alternative to laboratory scanning for complete arch implant scans.

Photogrammetry technology in implant dentistry: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Photogrammetry technology may be useful in implant dentistry, but a systematic review is lacking and is indicated before routine use in clinical practice.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the role of the photogrammetry technology used in implant dentistry and determine its validity as an accurate tool with clinical applications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four major databases, PubMed MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science, were selected to retrieve articles published from January 2011 to February 2021 based on custom criteria. The search was augmented by a manual search. After screening of the collected articles, data, including study design and setting, type of application, digitizer used, reference body, method of evaluation, and overall outcomes, were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included based on the selection criteria. Most of the articles confirmed that the use of photogrammetry was promising as an implant coordinate transfer system. However, few articles showed its use for 3-dimensional scanning, which might require more development.

CONCLUSIONS

The initial reports of using photogrammetry technology considered this method as a valid and reliable clinical tool in implant dentistry. More studies to develop the photogrammetry technology and to assess the results with evidence-based research are recommended to enhance its application in different clinical situations.

A fully digital protocol to provide a fixed interim complete denture for immediate loading for a completely edentulous patient: A dental technique

Complete arch immediate-loading implant-supported prostheses can represent a major challenge for the patient and the dental team. Obtaining stable references and an accurate occlusal record after implant placement to provide an interim prosthesis is a difficult task and can deviate from the initial treatment plan. The described technique presents a fully digital protocol to provide an immediate complete arch implant-supported fixed interim prosthesis for edentulous patients by making postoperative cone beam computed tomography and intraoral digital scans that correlate with the previous plan.

Accuracy of photogrammetric imaging versus conventional impressions for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: A comparative clinical study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Clinical studies on the accuracy of the photogrammetric imaging technique for complete arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the accuracy (trueness) of photogrammetric imaging for complete arch implant-supported prostheses by comparing photogrammetric imaging with verified conventional splinted impressions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Completely edentulous arches with at least 4 implants were included. Both photogrammetric imaging and conventional splinted impressions were performed in each jaw. The conventional casts were verified and scanned by using a laboratory scanner as the control. The distances and angulations between different implants (interimplant distances and interimplant angulations) were measured in all photogrammetric and conventional standard tessellation language (STL) files by using a reverse-engineering software program. The distance deviations between the photogrammetric and conventional impressions of the same participant were calculated as the primary outcome, and the angular deviations were obtained as the secondary outcome with descriptive analyses. The comparison between distance deviations and the clinically acceptable level of deviations (150 μm) was conducted by using the 1-sample t test. The effect of interimplant distances, interimplant angulations, and jaw (maxilla or mandible) on deviations was analyzed by using the Spearman correlation analysis, Kruskal-Wallis test, or Student t test, depending on the type of data (α=0.05 for all tests).

RESULTS

Fourteen edentulous jaws were included. The overall distance deviation of photogrammetric imaging was 70 ±57 μm, significantly lower than the clinically acceptable level of misfit (150 μm; P<.001). The overall angular deviation was 0.432 ±0.348 degrees. The distance deviations were correlated with interimplant distances with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.371 (P=.002). Interimplant angulation was not correlated with distance or angular deviations (P=.914, P=.914). Jaw was not correlated with distance or angular deviations either (P=.190, P=.209).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy (trueness) of photogrammetric imaging of complete arch implant-supported prostheses was within a clinically acceptable range of errors. Distance deviations increased with greater interimplant distances. Interimplant angulations and jaw (maxilla or mandible) had no significant effect on the accuracy of photogrammetric imaging.

Superimposition of intraoral scans of an edentulous arch with implants and implant-supported provisional restoration, implementing a novel implant prosthetic scan body

Purpose To describe a technique utilizing a novel prosthetic scan body, that assists the accurate merging of multiple scans (intra- and extraoral) of the interim prosthesis and edentulous arch with dental implants, during rehabilitation with a fixed implant-supported prosthesis.Methods Intraoral scanning (Trios 3, 3Shape) of an interim implant-supported prosthesis was performed, subsequently followed by another scan, using five scan bodies, placed onto the implant abutments (SRA, Bone level, Straumann AG). Successively, the newly designed prosthetic scan bodies were attached to the abutment copings of the interim prosthesis, for extraoral scanning. Utilizing an implant library designed for the prosthetic scan body, the three scans were merged, providing all the necessary information for the digital design and fabrication of the fixed implant-supported prosthesis.Conclusions The described clinical technique enabled effective and accurate superimposition of intra- and extraoral scans of the implant prosthesis. Superimposed data, including that of the position of dental implants and anatomy of soft tissue, provided essential information for the fabrication of a definitive implant-supported prosthesis. The novel prosthetic scan bodies attached to the implant prosthesis, assisted in merging intra- and extraoral scans, thus facilitating the rehabilitation of maxillary and/or mandibular edentulous dental arches. Further research is required to assess the accuracy of the proposed technique.

Digital replication and transfer of interim to definitive complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses by using a laboratory scanner

The present technique describes an effective digital approach for the replication and transfer of occlusion, maxillomandibular relationship, and esthetic parameters from interim to definitive complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses by laboratory scanning with transfer plates. Monolithic zirconia complete arch implant prostheses have been fabricated with satisfactory functional and esthetic outcomes.

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.

Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans

OBJECTIVES

To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4): occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).

RESULTS

Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant 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.

Scanning accuracy and scanning area discrepancies of intraoral digital scans acquired at varying scanning distances and angulations among 4 different intraoral scanners

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be affected by operator handling; however, the scanning area and accuracy discrepancies acquired at different scanning distances and angulations among IOSs remain uncertain.

PURPOSE

The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the scanning area and scanning accuracy of the intraoral digital scans obtained at 3 scanning distances with 4 different scanning angulations among 4 different IOSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A reference device (reference file) was designed with 4 inclinations (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees) and printed. Four groups were created based on the IOS: i700, TRIOS4, CS 3800, and iTero scanners. Four subgroups were generated depending on the scanning angulation (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees). Each subgroup was divided into 3 subgroups based on the scanning distance: 0, 2, and 4 mm (N=720, n=15). The reference devices were positioned in a z-axis calibrated platform for standardizing the scanning distance. In the i700-0-0 subgroup, the 0-degree reference device was positioned in the calibrated platform. The wand of the IOS was positioned in a supporting framework with a 0-mm scanning distance, and the scans were acquired. In the i700-0-2 subgroup, the platform was lowered for a 2-mm scanning distance followed by the specimen acquisition. In the i700-0-4 subgroup, the platform was further lowered for a 4-mm scanning distance, and the scans were obtained. For the i700-15, i700-30, and i700-45 subgroups, the same procedures were carried out as in the i700-0 subgroups respectively, but with the 10-, 15-, 30-, or 45-degree reference device. Similarly, the same procedures were completed for all the groups with the corresponding IOS. The area of each scan was measured. The reference file was used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the scanning area data. Kruskal-Wallis and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the RMS data (α=.05).

RESULTS

IOS (P<.001), scanning distance (P<.001), and scanning angle (P<.001) were significant factors of the scanning area measured among the subgroups tested. A significant group×subgroup interaction was found (P<.001). The iTero and the TRIOS4 groups obtained higher scanning area mean values than the i700 and CS 3800 groups. The CS 3800 obtained the lowest scanning area among the IOS groups tested. The 0-mm subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 2- and 4-mm subgroups (P<.001). The 0- and 30-degree subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 15- and 45-degree subgroups (P<.001). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant median RMS discrepancies (P<.001). All the IOS groups were significantly different from each other (P<.001), except for the CS 3800 and TRIOS4 groups (P>.999). All the scanning distance groups were different from each other (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning area and scanning accuracy were influenced by the IOS, scanning distance, and scanning angle selected to acquire the digital scans.

Virtual 3-dimensional representation of a completely edentulous patient for computer-aided static implant planning

A technique is described to create a virtual 3-dimensional representation of an edentulous patient by aligning the facial, intraoral, and cone beam computed tomography scans guided by an additively manufactured scan body. Having the virtual patient facilitated the prosthetically driven implant planning, the additive manufacturing of the surgical implant guides, and the interim dental restorations.

In Vitro Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners in a Four-Implant Complete-Arch Model

(1) Background: New intraoral (IOS) and laboratory scanners appear in the market and their trueness and precision have not been compared. (2) Methods: Seven IOS and two laboratory scanners were used to scan a mandibular edentulous model with four parallel internal hexagon implant analogues and PEEK scan bodies. Digital models in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) were created. The master model with the scan bodies was scanned (×10) with a computerized numerical control 3D Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). The short (distances of adjacent scan posts) and long distances (distances of the scan posts with non-adjacent sites in the arch) among the centroids of the four analogues were calculated using CMM special software. Trueness (comparisons with the master model) and precision (intragroup comparisons) were statistically compared with ANOVA, chi-square and Tukey tests. (3) Results: Laboratory scanners had the best trueness and precision compared to all IOSs for long distances. Only iTero (Align Technologies Inc., Milpitas, CA, USA) had comparable trueness with one laboratory scanner in short and long distances. For short distances, CS3600 (Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY, USA), Omnicam, Primescan (Sirona Dental Sys-tems GmbH, Bens-heim, Germany) and TRIOS 4 (3Shape A/S, Copen-hagen, Denmark) had similar trueness to one laboratory scanner. From those, only Omnicam and Primescan had similar precision as the same laboratory scanner. Most IOSs seem to work better for smaller distances and are less precise in cross-arch distances. (4) Conclusions: The laboratory scanners showed significantly higher trueness and precision than all IOSs tested for the long-distance group; for the short distance, some IOSs were not different in trueness and precision than the laboratory scanners.

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.

In vivo trueness and precision of full-arch implant scans using intraoral scanners with three different acquisition protocols

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate an in situ reference acquisition method for implant positions in complete edentulous maxillae using an industrial scanner and allowing for in vivo trueness analysis of the restorative workflow. To assess in vivo trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS) using different acquisition protocols. Furthermore, to compare IOS trueness with impression-based models and implant-supported fixed dentures (IFD) in a parallel study on the same cohort using the same in situ reference scan.

METHODS

Six scan-bodies mounted to maxillary implants in five subjects were reference scanned (REF) using an industrial scanner. Subjects were scanned with IOS three times using three different protocols: control (CT), dental floss assisted (DF), and acrylic splint (SP). CAD-files of scan-bodies with inter-aligned analogues were geometry-aligned to REF, and SP. Scan-bodies were aligned to CT and DF in proprietary dental laboratory software and exported with analogue positions. Resulting six CAD-analogues per scan were Globally Aligned using a consistent geometry-based alignment. Deviations were computed after a Reference Point System Alignment at the implant/prosthetic platform for Cartesian axes with a linear Resultant.

RESULTS

Resultant trueness was CT: 41±11 µm, DF: 49±22 µm, SP: 55±8 µm. Resultant precision was CT: 48±7 µm, DF: 50±7 µm, SP: 45±6 µm.

CONCLUSIONS

This method is applicable for assessing trueness of maxillary full-arch implant scans in vivo. The CT protocol was most accurate. CT trueness showed no difference to digitised impression-based models in parallel study. CT was more accurate than IFD in a parallel study. CT displayed similar numerical trueness as existing in vitro studies.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Using IOS to acquire full-arch implant scans is controversial. The modified protocol in this pilot shows promising results in the maxilla where great care was taken to manage non-attached tissues when a modified scanning pattern was used. However, other IOS may show varying results in vivo. A completed scan does not necessarily equate to an accurate scan.

Conventional and digital complete-arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Varying complete-arch digital-implant-scanning techniques have been described, but their accuracy remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effect of the implant angulation and impression method (conventional, intraoral digital scan, intraoral scan with a splinting framework, and combining cone beam computed tomography [CBCT] and intraoral scan) on the accuracy of complete arch implant recording.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The following 2 casts were obtained: one with 4 parallel (P group) and the other with 4 angled (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group). Both the casts were digitized (7Series Scanner) (control file). The following 4 subgroups were created: conventional polyether impression with a splinted framework (CNV subgroup), intraoral scan (IOS subgroup), intraoral scan with a splinting framework (S-IOS subgroup), and intraoral scan combined with CBCT scan (CBCT-IOS subgroup) (n=10). For each file, an implant-supported bar was designed and imported into a program (Netfabb) to perform linear and angular interimplant abutment measurements. Two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and Tukey tests were selected to examine the data (α=.05).

RESULTS

Implant angulation (P=.010) and impression method (P=.003) significantly influenced the linear trueness. The P group (112 μm) obtained better linear trueness than the NP group (144 μm). The CNV subgroup obtained the best linear trueness, while the IOS and CBCT-IOS showed the worst trueness. Group (P<.001) significantly influenced angular trueness. Group (P=.009) and subgroup (P<.001) influenced the linear precision. The P group (72 μm) obtained better linear precision than the NP group (91 μm). The IOS subgroup obtained the best linear precision. Group (P=.034) significantly influenced the angular precision. The P group (0.46 degrees) had higher angular precision compared with the NP group (0.60 degrees).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation and the impression methods tested, impacted the accuracy of the complete-arch implant recording. Parallel implants had better trueness and precision values than nonparallel implants. The conventional impression method showed the best trueness and precision. Among the digital implant scan methods assessed, the S-IOS and CBCT-IOS subgroups acquired significantly better trueness and precision than the IOS subgroup.

Calibrated splinting framework for complete arch intraoral implant digital scans manufactured by combining milled and additively manufacturing technologies: A dental technique

Splinting frameworks are intended to increase the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital implant scans. This article describes a technique that uses a calibrated splinting framework manufactured by combining milled and additively manufacturing technologies (IOSRing) for assisting with complete arch intraoral digital implant scanning. The splinting framework contains milled truncated cone-shape markers whose position in the metal framework is measured during the manufacturing process with a coordinate measurement machine. This framework splints the modified implant scan bodies and assists in the complete arch intraoral implant digital scanning. Computer-aided design procedures are then used to calculate the implant position on the virtual definitive implant cast by using the position of the calibrated markers as a reference.

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

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of implant angulation, humidity, and interimplant distance on the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans.

METHODS

A definitive cast with 4 parallel implant abutment analogs (P group), and another cast with 4 angulated (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group) were digitized by using a scanner (7Series) (reference scans). Two subgroups were created: dry (D subgroup) and wet (W subgroup). For the D subgroup, the casts were digitized without altering the surface humidity by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 3). For the W subgroup, the cast surface was humidified with artificial saliva and digitized by using the same IOS. The interimplant distance discrepancies were assessed by computing linear and angular measurements. Trueness data was analyzed using 3-way ANOVA followed by the pairwise comparison Tukey tests. The Bartlett test, followed by the pairwise comparison tests, was used to assess the precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Regarding the trueness, implant angulation (P<.001) and inter-implant distance measurement (P<.001) influenced the linear discrepancies. Implant angulation (P=.002), humidity conditions (P<.001), and inter-implant distance (P=.001) influenced the angular discrepancies. Regarding the precision, significant differences in the variance of linear and angular measurements and inter-implant distances were found. Humidity conditions (P<.001) influenced the scanning time.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation, humidity, and interimplant distance influenced the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans. Parallel implants resulted in higher trueness and precision values. Dry conditions resulted in slightly higher scanning trueness and precision and shorter scanning time.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Drying the surface being scanned increases intraoral scanning accuracy and decreases intraoral scanning time.