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

Research progress on accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for implant-supported full-arch prostheses

With the rapid development of implant techniques and digital technology, digital impressions have become a commonly used impression method in implant restoration. At present, the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions directly applied to implant-supported full-arch prostheses remains inadequate, which is due to the high accuracy requirement of full-arch implant impressions, while there are still technical challenges in intraoral digital impressions about recognition and stitching. In this regard, scholars have proposed a variety of scanning strategies to improve the accuracy of intraoral scan, including mucosal modifications, auxiliary devices and novel scan bodies. At the same time photogrammetry, as a new digital impression technique, has been developing steadily and exhibits promising accuracy. This article reviews the research progress on the accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impressions and techniques which can improve the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions, to provide reference for clinical application.

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.

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.

Comparison between Conventional and Digital Impressions for Determining Axes and Distances of Three Implants in Straight and Curved Lines: An In Vitro Study

Background: In this study, we aimed to compare the effects of conventional and digital impressions on several parameters (inter-implant distance, intra-implant distance, inter-implant axis, and intra-implant axis) of three implants in curved lines and straight lines by using a laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS). Methods: Two 3D models were fabricated using a printer, each model with three internal hex implants analogues at the positions of 15#,16#,17# (straight line) and 12#,13#,14# (curved line). Standard intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs) were used, and the two models were scanned using 7 Series dental wings (LBS, reference model), followed by ten scans with Primescan (digital method). Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files were created. Five polyether impressions were taken from each model (straight and curved), and gypsum type 4 models were poured; each model was scanned five times to create a total of 25 STL files for each group (conventional method). The comparison between all the STL files (conventional and digital) was made by superimposition of the STL files on the STL reference model laboratory file using a 3D analyzing software. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed, followed by Mann-Whitney tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. (p < 0.05). Results: For the conventional method, the mean errors were significantly higher for the curved line model (12-14) compared to the straight line model (15-17) for most parameters (p < 0.05). For the digital method, the mean errors were significantly higher for the curved-line model (12-14) compared to the straight line model (15-17) in half of the parameters (p < 0.05). Within the curved line model (12-14) and the straight line model (15-17), the mean errors between the conventional method and the digital method were not significant for most variables. Conclusions: The difference between curved lines and straight lines has an impact on the mean error of the conventional method. Both methods are reliable for straight and curved lines in partially dentate situations.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Effect of using scan body accessories and inter-implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To introduce a novel design for scan body accessory parts that are reusable, easy to attach and detach without permanent change of the scan body, and can be used with different inter-implant distances to enhance the accuracy of complete arch implant scans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) model with a soft tissue replica was fabricated with four implant analogs located at tooth positions 17, 13, 22, and 27 with 18, 25, and 30 mm inter-implant distances. Four scan bodies (SBs) were attached to the implants. The model was scanned with a laboratory scanner to be used as a reference scan. A total of 40 scans were made with the same intraoral scanner and they were divided equally into two groups. Group A: Complete arch implant scans without scan body accessories (n = 20), and Group B: Complete arch implant scans with scan body accessories (n = 20). Intraoral scans were exported and superimposed on the reference scan using reverse engineering inspection software to be evaluated for 3D deviations, angular deviations, and linear deviations. Statistical analysis was performed with student t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures followed by post hoc adjusted Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05.

RESULTS

The scan body accessories decreased both the 3D and linear deviations, with a statistically significant difference at SB4 for the 3D deviation (P = 0.043) and the linear inter-implant discrepancies between SB1-SB2 and SB3-SB4 (P = 0.029 and < 0.001), respectively. However, there was no statistically significant difference in angular deviation between the study groups. Implant positions had significant differences within each group.

CONCLUSIONS

 A significant improvement in the accuracy of the complete arch implant digital impression was achieved by using the scan body accessories, particularly in reducing the 3D and linear deviations at the most distant implant positions.

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.

A comprehensive review and update on the current state of computer-assisted rehabilitation in implant dentistry

AIM

This paper provides a comprehensive review of the established concepts and newer developments related to computer-assisted implant rehabilitation.

METHODS

Two independent researchers searched the English literature published to 31st December 2023 in the PubMed/Medline database for primary and secondary research and related publications on computer-assisted implant planning, computer-assisted implant placement and computer-assisted implant restoration.

RESULTS

A total of 58,923 papers were identified, 198 relevant papers were read in full text and 110 studies were finally included. Computer-assisted implant rehabilitation was found to result in more precise implant positioning than freehand placement. Advantages include reduced trauma and surgery time; disadvantages include reduced primary implant stability and higher cost.

CONCLUSION

Computer-assisted surgery is particularly indicated in cases of critical anatomy, but may encounter limitations in terms of cost, restricted mouth opening, visibility and adjustment of the surgical guides and the need for prior familiarisation with the procedure. Nonetheless, this surgical technique reduces the post-implant placement complication rate.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Influence of Implant Adjacent Teeth on the Accuracy of Digital Impression

OBJECTIVE

 The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth patterns on the accuracy of digital scans of parallel and divergent implants for three-unit prostheses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 A maxillary typodont model with implants in the locations of the first premolars and first molars was used to develop three clinical scenarios for three-unit prostheses: (S1) Partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars and first molars only; (S2) partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars, second premolars and first molars; and (S3) partially edentulous arch with missing canines, first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars. On one side, the implants were parallel, and for the other side, the implants had a 15-degree buccolingual angle. With the aid of scan bodies, 10 digital impressions were taken for each scenario and for each side. To evaluate the accuracy, a reverse engineering software was used to measure trueness, precision, and interimplant distance.

RESULTS

 The best trueness for parallel implants was observed for S2 (30.0 µm), followed by S3 (67.3 µm) and S1 (74.8 µm) (p < 0.001). Likewise, S2 had the best precision for parallel implants (31.3 µm) followed by S3 (38.0 µm) and S1 (70.3 µm) (p < 0.001). For the divergent implants, S2 exhibited the best trueness (23.1 µm), followed by S3 (48.2 µm) and S1 (59.4 µm) (p = 0.007). Similarly, the S2 had the best precision (12.3 µm) followed by S3 (62.1 µm) and S1 (66.9 µm) (p < 0.001). The S2 had the least interimplant distance deviation followed by S1 and S3. The difference was significant for parallel implants (p = 0.03), but insignificant for divergent implants (p = 0.15).

CONCLUSION

 Regardless of the presenting scenario, digital implant impressions for three-unit prostheses appear to be clinically accurate. A clear interimplant area between scan bodies enhanced the accuracy of digital impressions. This observation can be attributed to more accessible axial surface scanning of the scan body.

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.

Accuracy of Selective Laser Melted Bar Retaining Mandibular Implant-Assisted Overdenture: An In Vitro Comparison of Different Impression Materials and Techniques

This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the marginal fit of 2 implant-supported overdenture bars fabricated with selective laser melting technology, using polyvinyl siloxane and vinyl siloxane ether impression materials and different impression techniques. Two implants with multi-unit abutments were inserted in a 3D-printed mandibular model and used as a reference model, then duplicated into a stone cast to fabricate custom trays for obtaining impressions with polyvinyl siloxane and vinyl siloxane ether impression materials, using both open and closed-tray techniques. This resulted in a total of 4 groups, each with 8 specimens. The impressions were poured and scanned, and 32 cobalt-chromium bars were fabricated using selective laser melting technology. Each bar was screwed onto one abutment of the reference model, and a standardized digital periapical radiograph of the opposite unscrewed side was taken; this process was repeated to the other abutment. The vertical misfit was measured at 3 predetermined positions on the unscrewed side, and 6 values per bar were recorded. The mean gap distance was measured, and the data were subjected to statistical analysis; the present study found that the open-tray technique with vinyl polyether siloxane impression material may offer improved accuracy for obtaining impressions for 2 implant-supported bars. The open-tray technique groups also showed better marginal fit than the closed-tray groups. However, further clinical research is required to confirm these findings.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions using a novel structured light scanning system assisted by a planar mirror in the edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop a structured light scanning system with a planar mirror to enhance the digital full-arch implant impression accuracy and to compare it with photogrammetry and intraoral scanner methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary stone cast with six scan bodies was scanned as the reference model using a laboratory scanner. Three scanning modalities were compared (n = 10): (1) self-developed structured light scanning with a mirror (SSLS); (2) intraoral scanner (IOS); and (3) photogrammetry system (PG). The scanners were stopped for 1 min after each scan. Six scan bodies were analysed within each scan model. Linear deviations between the scan bodies (1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6) and 3D mucosal deviations were established. The overall deviation was calculated as the mean of all linear deviations. "Trueness" represented the discrepancy between the test and reference files, while "precision" denoted the consistency among the test files. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Significant overall linear discrepancies were noted among the SSLS, PG, and IOS groups (p < .001). SSLS showed the best overall trueness and precision (6.6, 5.7 μm), followed by PG (58.4, 6.8 μm) and IOS (214.6, 329.1 μm). For the 3D mucosal deviation, the trueness (p < .001) and precision (p < .001) of the SSLS group were significantly better than those of the IOS group.

CONCLUSIONS

The SSLS exhibited higher accuracy in determining the implant positions than the PG and IOS. Additionally, it demonstrated better accuracy in capturing the mucosa than IOS.

Annual review of selected scientific literature: A report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The Scientific Investigation Committee of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry offers this review of the 2022 dental literature to briefly touch on several topics of interest to modern restorative dentistry. Each committee member brings discipline-specific expertise in their subject areas that include (in order of the appearance in this report): prosthodontics; periodontics, alveolar bone, and peri-implant tissues; dental materials and therapeutics; occlusion and temporomandibular disorders; sleep-related breathing disorders; oral medicine and oral and maxillofacial surgery; and dental caries and cariology. The authors focused their efforts on reporting information likely to influence the daily dental treatment decisions of the reader with an emphasis on innovations, new materials and processes, and future trends in dentistry. With the tremendous volume of literature published daily in dentistry and related disciplines, this review cannot be comprehensive. Instead, its purpose is to update interested readers and provide valuable resource material for those willing to subsequently pursue greater detail on their own. Our intent remains to assist colleagues in navigating the tremendous volume of newly minted information produced annually. Finally, we hope that readers find this work helpful in managing patients.

Accuracy of intraoral scan with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry compared with open tray impressions for complete-arch implant-supported prosthesis: A clinical study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this clinical study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scan system (IOS) with prefabricated aids and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) compared with open tray implant impression (OI) for complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (CIFDP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients needing CIFDP were enrolled in this study. OI, reference standard, IOS with prefabricated aids, and SPG were performed for each patient. Distance and angle deviations between all pairs of abutment analogs, root mean square (RMS) errors between the aligned test and reference model, and chairside time were measured. The effect of inter-abutment distance, jaw (maxilla or mandible), number of implants, and arch length on deviations was analyzed. The mixed effect model was applied to analyze deviations and RMS errors.

RESULTS

Fifteen consecutive individuals (6 females and 9 males, 47-77 years old) with 22 arches (9 upper and 13 lower jaws) and 115 implants were included. There was no significant difference in distance deviation comparing SPG and IOS with OI (p > .05). IOS showed a significantly greater angle deviation and RMS errors than SPG (median 0.40° vs. 0.31°, 69 μm vs. 45 μm, p < .01). The inter-abutment distance was negatively correlated with the accuracy of SPG and IOS (p < .05). The chairside time for IOS, SPG, and OI was 10.49 ± 3.50, 14.71 ± 2.86, and 20.20 ± 3.01 min, respectively (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of SPG and IOS with prefabricated aids was comparable. IOS was the most efficient workflow.

Accuracy of different digital acquisition methods in complete arch implant-supported prostheses: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital methods such as intraoral scanners for recording the location of implants supporting complete arch prostheses have limitations. Photogrammetry devices should be able to digitize implant positions accurately, but standardized comparisons between different digital acquisition methods are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the repeatability of different digital acquisition methods for complete arch prostheses supported by 6 and 4 implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A master cast was created with 6 and 4 dental implants with multiunit abutments to obtain the master digital casts. The evaluated devices were the industrial high-resolution 12-megapixel scanner (reference) Atos Compact Scan 12M (GOM), the laboratory scanners D2000 (3Shape A/S) and S900 Arti (Zirkonzahn), the photogrammetry devices iCam (iMetric4D) and PIC (PIC Dental), and the intraoral scanners TRIOS 3 (3Shape A/S) and iTero Element 5D (Align Technology). The resulting files were imported to a computer-aided design software program (exocad GmbH) to obtain the implant replicas as standard tessellation language (STL) files. These files were imported into a software program (Geomagic Control X) and superimposed per group through the best-fit algorithm to determine repeatability, defined as the closeness of agreement between each group's scanned results as root mean square (RMS) values. The normality of distribution was tested by the Shapiro-Wilk normality test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test with adjustment with the Bonferroni correction method was used accordingly (α=.05).

RESULTS

The repeatability means and 95% confidence intervals for the 4 implant scans were: 1.07 µm (0.86; 1.29) for GOM, 2.05 µm (1.89; 2.21) for D2000, 3.61 µm (3.23; 3.99) for S900, 7.01 µm (6.11; 7.91) for iCam, 5.18 µm (4.6; 5.76) for PIC, 20.52 µm (18.33; 22.72) for TRIOS3, and 20.5 µm (17.37; 23.63) for iTero. Statistically significant differences were found between devices, except for iCam versus PIC, GOM versus S900, iCam versus D2000, PIC versus D2000, and TRIOS3 versus iTero. The repeatability means and 95% confidence intervals for the 6 implant groups were: 1.36 µm (1.08; 1.65) for GOM, 3.17 µm (3.01; 3.33) for D2000, 2.15 µm (2.04; 2.25) for S900, 8.67 µm (8.06; 9.28) for iCam, 13.88 µm (12.62; 15.14) for PIC, 40.32 µm (36.29; 44.36) for TRIOS3, and 38.86 µm (34.01; 43.71) for iTero. Statistically significant differences were detected between devices, except for S900 versus GOM, PIC versus iCam, and iTero versus TRIOS 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that photogrammetry could be a suitable alternative for recording implant locations of complete arch prostheses supported by 4 or 6 implants, with better repeatability than intraoral scanners. Increasing the number of implants decreased the repeatability of every device tested except the laboratory scanners.

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

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

Accuracy of Digital Dental Implants Impression Taking with Intraoral Scanners Compared with Conventional Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implants impressions taken with intraoral scanner compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression" and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from the earliest article available until 31 July 2021. A total of 26 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 14 studies simulated complete edentation (CE), nine partial edentation (PE) and only two simulated a single implant (SI); One study simulated both CE and SI. In cases of PE and SI, most of the studies analyzed found greater accuracy with conventional impression (CI), although digital impression (DI) was also considered adequate. For CE the findings were inconclusive as six studies found greater accuracy with DI, five found better accuracy with CI and four found no differences. According to the results of this systematic review, DI is a valid alternative to CI for implants in PE and SI, although CI appear to be more accurate. For CE the findings were inconclusive, so more studies are needed before DI can be recommended for all implant-supported restorations.