Trueness of ten intraoral scanners in determining the positions of simulated implant scan bodies

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

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.

Virtual implant scan body switch by using computer-aided design programs avoiding the need of obtaining a new intraoral implant digital scan: A novel protocol

OBJECTIVE

The present manuscript describes a technique to virtually switch an implant scan body eliminating the need of obtaining a new intraoral implant digital scan.

CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Implant scan bodies assist on transferring the 3-dimensional position of the implants into the virtual definitive implant cast. However, if a different implant part is desired during the designing procedures of the implant restoration such as selecting a different implant abutment of varying height, angulation, or manufacturer, a new intraoral implant digital scan with the specific implant scan body is required.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel protocol aims to reduce possible complications that require capturing a new intraoral implant digital scan, facilitate prostheses design modifications after the obtention of the definitive intraoral implant digital scan, and to ease the manufacturing procedures.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The novel technique may provide a solution for virtually switch implant scan bodies for fabricating implant-supported single crowns or short-span prostheses. Additional studies are needed before its clinical implementation.

Effect of scan pattern on the scan accuracy of a combined healing abutment scan body system

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

A recently introduced scan body combined with a contoured healing abutment enables digital scans of the implant while its healing abutment shapes the soft tissue for an appropriate emergence profile. However, information on the effect of different scan patterns on the scan accuracy of this new system is lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of scan pattern on the accuracy of digital implant scans by using a combined healing abutment-scan body system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A combined healing abutment-scan body system was secured on a single implant at the right first molar site in a dentate mandibular model. A master reference model was generated by scanning the model with an industrial light scanner. The model was then scanned with 4 different scan patterns (SP-A, SP-B, SP-C, and SP-D) by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). Test scans (n=8) were superimposed over the master reference model by using a metrology software, and distance and angular deviations were calculated. Distance and angular deviation data were analyzed with a multivariate analysis of variance and the Tukey honestly significant difference tests for trueness and precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Distance deviations (trueness [P=.461] and precision [P=.533] deviations) in the scans were not significantly affected by the scan pattern. Scan pattern affected the trueness (P=.001) and precision (P=.002) when angular deviations were considered. In terms of trueness, SP-D resulted in the highest angular deviations in scans (P≤.031), while the difference in deviations in scans obtained by using other scan patterns was not significant (P≥.378). When angular deviation data were considered, SP-D resulted in lower scan precision than SP-A (P=.014) and SP-B (P=.007). The precision of scans using SP-C was similar to the precision of the scans made by using other scan patterns (P≥.055) in terms of angular deviations.

CONCLUSIONS

The scan accuracy of a combined healing abutment-scan body system was affected by the scan pattern. The scans performed with SP-D presented the lowest accuracy considering the angular deviation data and, therefore, may be the least favored among the patterns tested for scanning a combined healing abutment-scan body system.

Effect of artificial landmarks of the prefabricated auxiliary devices located at different arch positions on the accuracy of complete-arch edentulous digital implant scanning: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of artificial landmarks of prefabricated auxiliary devices (PAD) located at different arch positions on the accuracy of complete-arch edentulous digital implant scanning.

METHODS

A reference model containing four analogs and PAD were fabricated by a 3D printer (AccuFab-C1s, 3DShining). 10 digital scans were performed using an intraoral scanner (Aoralscan 3, 3DShining), sv 1.0.0.3115, with artificial landmarks located at different arch positions: group I, without any artificial landmarks; group II, with artificial landmarks at the anterior region; group III, with artificial landmarks at the posterior region. group IV: with artificial landmarks at both anterior and posterior regions. For group V: Conventional open-tray splinted impressions. The reference file and conventional stone casts were digitalized by using a dental laboratory scanner. The related files were imported into inspection software for trueness and precision assessment. Statistical analysis was performed with One-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis test. The level of significance was set at α=0.05.

RESULTS

For the global accuracy assessment, significantly higher global trueness was seen in group II (p < 0.01), III (p < 0.001), IV (p < 0.001) and V (p < 0.001) than group I. Significantly higher global precision was seen in group III (p < 0.001), IV (p < 0.001) and V (p < 0.001) than group I. For the local accuracy assessment, the PAD primarily improved accuracy on the linear deviations.

CONCLUSIONS

Artificial landmarks of PAD at different arch positions significantly influenced the scanning accuracy. Applying the PAD in group IV could achieve comparable outcomes to conventional open-tray splinted impressions. Artificial landmarks on the posterior region may be more pivotal than those on the anterior region.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Group IV could achieve comparable accuracy to conventional open-tray splinted impressions.

Trueness of intraoral scanning for different tooth-size arch-length deficiencies

Background/purpose

As science and technology continue to advance, the utilization of intraoral scanners (IOSs) has become increasingly popular in the orthodontic workflow. The aim of this study was to discuss whether the degree of crowded arches affects scan accuracy.

Materials and methods

Three different crowding levels of dental models (model MI: mild, model MO: moderate, and model SE: severe) were scanned using both an IOS and desktop scanner. Stereolithographic files were obtained and superimposed via CAD software to calculate differences between each measuring point of a model and the farthest corresponding point. The deviations from three models were compared with statistical analysis.

Results

The trueness of different crowding arches showed that the deviation value of model SE was the maximum, followed by model MI, and model MO in the maxillary arch. In the mandibular arch, the order of the deviation from greatest to least was firstly model SE, then model MO, and model MI. Significant differences were observed among the maxillary models (P < 0.001), but there was no significant difference between models in the mandible (P = 0.669).

Conclusion

The trueness of the three crowded arches is in the clinically acceptable range. The degree of crowding increases, the trueness of scanning at each position decreases. In the maxillary arch, more severe crowding corresponds to higher deviations. In the mandible, the degree of crowding is not explicitly related to the maximum deviation; therefore, the clinician should notice the deviation when using IOSs for crowding cases.

Accuracy comparison of scan segmental sequential ranges with two intraoral scanners for maxilla and mandible

Background/purpose

The accuracy of a full-arch scan by using an intraoral scanner should be validated under clinical conditions. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in the maxilla and mandible using two intra oral scanners with three different scan segmental sequential ranges.

Materials and methods

A dental model with 28 teeth in their normal positions served as the reference. Sixty full-arch scans were performed using Trios 3 and Trios 4, employing scanning strategy O (manufacturer's original method), OH (segmental sequential ranges one half), and TQ (segmental sequential ranges third quarter). Trueness was evaluated by comparing digital impressions with a reference dataset using specialized software. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests assessed differences between the groups.

Results

For Trios 3 on the maxilla, no significant difference was found among the groups of trueness; in the mandible, strategy O exhibited a significant difference (P = 0.008) with the highest deviation. For Trios 4 on the maxilla, strategy TQ demonstrated the lowest deviation with a significant difference (P = 0.006); in the mandible, no significant difference was found among the groups of trueness.

Conclusion

Strategy TQ exhibited the best trueness for Trios 3 and Trios 4, suggesting it may be preferred for higher accuracy. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting scanning strategies and intraoral scanners for specific cases.

Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of digital implant scans can be affected by the implant angulation, implant depth, or interimplant distance. However, studies analyzing intraoral scanning accuracy with different implant angulations and different scan body heights are scarce.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the influence of the implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two definitive implant casts with 6 implant analogs (Zimmer Biomet) were obtained: 1 cast had all the implant analogs parallel (GP group), and 1 cast had the implant analogs with divergence of up to 30 degrees (GD group). A coordinate measurement machine (Global Evo 09.15.08) was used to measure the positions of the implant analogs. Each group was divided into 3 subgroups depending on the clinical implant scan body height: 10, 6, and 3 mm. An implant scan body (Elos Accurate Scan Body Brånemark system) was positioned on each implant analog. A total of 10 scans of each subgroup were recorded by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). Each STL file obtained was imported into a reverse engineering software program (Geomagic), and linear and angular Euclidean measurements were obtained. The Euclidean calculations between the implant analog positions of the definitive implant casts were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies among the corresponding subgroups. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the lineal measurements were not normally distributed, so the Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparison Dunn tests were used (α=.05). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the angular measurements were normally distributed. Therefore, the 2-way ANOVA and pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used (α=.05).

RESULTS

The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences in the linear Euclidean medians between the GP and GD groups with different clinical implant scan body heights (H(5)=23.18, P<.001). Significant differences in the linear Euclidean medians were computed between the GP-6 and GD-10 subgroups (P=.009), GD-3 and GD-6 subgroups (P=.029), and GD-3 and GD-10 subgroups (P=.001). Two-way ANOVA revealed that the implant angulation (F(1, 3.3437)=28.93, P<.001) and clinical implant scan body height (F(2, 0.4358)=3.77, P=.029) were significant predictors of discrepancies in the angular measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation and clinical scan body height influenced scanning accuracy. The lowest clinical implant scan body height tested had the lowest accuracy in both parallel and angled implants, but statistically significant differences were found only in the angled group.

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 single-implant digital impression with various scanbody exposure levels at anterior and posterior regions

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of the exposure heights of the scanbody on the accuracy of digital implant impressions at different positions.

METHODS

Four maxillary master models with one analog at the anterior and posterior region were fabricated by a 3-dimensional (3D) printer. The analogs were submerged from the gingival margin to ensure four exposure heights of the scanbody: 10, 8, 6, and 4 mm. . The master models were then scanned with D2000 dental laboratory scanner as the reference models. An intraoral scanner obtained ten test models for each group. After aligning the scanbody library file, the related files were imported into inspection software for superimposition by a local fit algorithm based on the adjacent teeth.

RESULTS

3D trueness was significantly decreased at 6 and 4 mm scanbody exposure at the anterior region. In comparison, a significant decrease was only seen at 4 mm scanbody exposure at the posterior region. 3D precision was significantly decreased at 4 mm scanbody exposure at both anterior and posterior regions.

CONCLUSION

The exposure height of the scanbody influenced the accuracy of the digital implant impression, according to the implant positions. Scanbody exposure of less than 6 mm at the anterior region and 4 mm scanbody exposure at the posterior region could lead to increased deviations, but still in the tolerance range.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The scanbody exposure height less than 6 mm at the anterior region and 4 mm scanbody exposure height at the posterior region could lead to significantly increased deviations. Though these deviations may be still in the clinically acceptable range, caution should be taken.

Comparative assessment of marginal and internal gaps of cast-free monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated from 2 intraoral scanners: A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Despite the introduction of intraoral scanners (IOSs) with dual camera triangulation, only a few comparative clinical studies have evaluated their clinical performances in the digital workflow for cast-free restorations.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this clinical trial was to assess the clinical efficacy of 2 different technology-based IOSs by evaluating the marginal and internal gaps of cast-free monolithic zirconia crowns fabricated by using a fully digital workflow.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in 35 participants requiring a single-unit restoration. One crown was fabricated from the scan data obtained with a confocal microscopy-based IOS (Group T), while the other was made with the scan data obtained from an IOS using dual camera triangulation (Group I). A replica technique was used to assess the marginal and internal gaps. The buccolingual and mesiodistal cross-sections were measured, and noninferiority trials were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 39 teeth from 35 participants were restored with a single-unit crown. The marginal and axial wall gaps of the crowns in Group I was not inferior to that of the crowns in Group T (upper limit confidence interval [CI] <30). In contrast, the gap of the crowns at the line angle in Group T was inferior to that of the crowns in Group I (lower limit CI <-30). From an occlusal space perspective, the gap of the crowns in Group I was inferior to that of the crowns in Group T (upper limit CI >30). Twenty-five crowns were selected from Group I, and 14 crowns were selected from Group T for definitive placement.

CONCLUSIONS

The marginal gap of the crown fabricated by using the scan data obtained from the dual camera triangulation-based IOS was noninferior to that obtained from the confocal microscopy-based IOS and was within the clinically applicable limit.

Accuracy of intraoral scanning methods for maxillary Kennedy class I arch

Background/purpose

The optimal strategy for scanning removable partial dentures remains unknown. This study investigated scanning strategies for patients with a maxillary Kennedy Class I arch as well as the measurement deviations of three scanning strategies.

Materials and methods

A standard maxilla model was positioned with a holder in a dental chair to simulate a natural patient position and posture. Standard Tessellation Language files for reference models were formatted with a desktop scanner, and model operation files were obtained with a TRIOS 3 Pod intraoral scanner and superimposed using Exocad computer-aided design software. The three scanning strategies evaluated in this study (Strategy M, T-R, and R-T) were used for nine scans each, and the resulting data were recorded. The deviation of the three strategies was statistically analyzed through one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc testing.

Results

The trueness of Strategy M, T-R, and R-T was 52.6 ± 31.0, 54.9 ± 27.6, and 50.1 ± 22.3 μm, respectively. No statistically significant differences in trueness were detected among the three groups (P > 0.05). However, Strategy T-R had the evenest distribution of all measuring points. The deviations of the measurements obtained by three scanning strategies were mostly between 30 and 70 μm. The precision of the three strategies was similar as well.

Conclusion

Trueness did not differ significantly among the three strategies. However, Strategy T-R is recommended for use with a TRIOS 3 Pod scanner because of its reduction of the seesaw effect and high stabilization of the RPD framework.

Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment-scan body system depending on the scan pattern and implant location: an in-vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To test the effect of scan pattern and the location of the implant on the trueness and precision of implant scans when the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system is used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A partially edentulous maxillary model with CHA-SBs secured on implants at 3 different sites in the left quadrant (central incisor, first premolar, and first molar) was fabricated. The model was scanned with an industrial light scanner to generate a master reference model (MRM) file. An intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) was used to perform the test scans (n=8) with 4 different scan patterns (SP1, SP2, SP3, and SP4) with an intraoral scanner. The test scans were superimposed over the MRM file with a metrology software to calculate the distance deviations of the CHA-SB system. Data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests for accuracy (α=.05).

RESULTS

Trueness (P=.001) and precision (P=.018) were significantly affected by the interaction between the scan pattern and implant location. The implant located at the central incisor site (56.7 ±35.9, 36.2 ±18.6) had higher trueness than that of located at the premolar site (94.1 ±20.4, 100.3 ±20) when SP2 (P=.037) and SP4 (P=.002) were used. The implant at the molar site (71.9 ±25.7, 147.2 ±49.7) had trueness either similar to (when SP2 was used, P≥.276) or lower than (when SP4 was used, P≤.024) those of others. Scans of the central incisor and premolar implants had the lowest trueness when scanned with SP1 (P≤.009), while the scans of molar implant showed higher trueness when performed by using SP2 and SP3 when compared with SP4 (P≤.005). When SP4 was used, the implant at the molar site had lower precision (43 ±18.9) than the implants located at the central incisor (14.1 ±11) and premolar sites (15.4 ±11.3) (P=.002). Scan patterns affected the scan precision of central incisor implant (P=.009), as SP4 (14.1 ±11) led to a higher precision than SP1 (47.7 ±27) (P=.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The scan accuracy of combined healing abutment-scan body system was affected by scan pattern and implant location. SP1, which involved palatal and rotational scans resulted in the lowest trueness for central incisor and premolar implants, while the scans of the central incisor implant showed the highest trueness among different sites when SP4 was used. However, the scan pattern and implant site had a minor effect on precision. Scan precision at different implant sites only differed when SP4 was used, which resulted in the lowest precision for molar implant.

Analysis of the relationship between the surface topography of prepared tooth surfaces and data quality of digital impressions from an intraoral scanner

Background/purpose

With the rise of digitalization in dentistry, intraoral scanners and digital impressions have recently been adopted by many clinicians. The aim of this study was to investigate surface topography of prepared teeth and the accuracy of digital impressions.

Materials and methods

Twenty mandibular typodonts, containing left first premolar and left first molar abutment teeth manufactured by using CAD/CAM, were used in this study. An intraoral scanner was used to scan each typodont, and each STL file generated was exported in high resolution (Group H), moderate resolution (Group M), and low resolution (Group L). All 60 files were inspected in a 3-D mesh processing software. For each file, the number of triangulation points in the meshwork were obtained for both abutment teeth.

Results

The measurements obtained from the 3-D mesh processing software revealed that the mean number of triangulation points on the 3-D surface of the abutment teeth (20 premolars + 20 M) were 790,625 ± 98,890 dots in Group H, 592,283 ± 74,881 dots in Group M, and 198,067 ± 19,328 dots in Group L. Significant differences were found between Group H and M (p < 0.05), Group H and L (p < 0.001), and Group M and L (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The outcomes of this study reveal that there are strong correlations between the data quality of digital impressions and surface topography of prepared teeth. Therefore, the utilization of STL files in high resolution format is the recommended choice for clinicians engaging in a digital workflow process.

Accuracy of full-arch digitalization for partially edentulous jaws - a laboratory study on basis of coordinate-based data analysis

Objectives

To compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of direct digitization of four different dental gap situation with two IOS (intraoral scanner).

Materials and methods

Four partially edentulous polyurethane mandible models were used: (1) A (46, 45, 44 missing), (2) B (45, 44, 34, 35 missing), (3) C (42, 41, 31, 32 missing), and (4) D (full dentition). On each model, the same reference object was fixed between the second molars of both quadrants. A dataset (REF) of the reference object was generated by a coordinate measuring machine. Each model situation was scanned by (1) OMN (Cerec AC Omnicam) and (2) PRI (Cerec Primescan AC) (n = 30). Datasets of all 8 test groups (N = 240) were analyzed using inspection software to determine the linear aberrations in the X-, Y-, Z-axes and angular deviations. Mann–Whitney U and two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests were used to detect differences for trueness and precision.

Results

PRI revealed higher trueness and precision in most of the measured parameters (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\overrightarrow{V}}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E 120.95 to 175.01 μm, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E(x) − 58.50 to − 9.40 μm, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (z) − 70.35 to 63.50 μm), while OMN showed higher trueness for \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (y) regardless of model situation (− 104.90 to 34.55 μm). Model D revealed the highest trueness and precision in most of the measured parameters regardless of IOS (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E 120.95 to 195.74 μm, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (x) − 9.40 to 66.75 μm,\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (y) − 14.55 to 51.50 μm, \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\overrightarrow{V}_{E}$$\end{document}V→E (z) 63.50 to 120.75 μm).

Conclusions

PRI demonstrated higher accuracy in the X- and Z-axes, while OMN depicted higher trueness in the Y-axis. For PRI, Model A revealed the highest distortion, while for OMN, Model B produced the largest aberrations in most parameters.

Clinical relevance

Current results suggest that both investigated IOS are sufficiently accurate for the manufacturing of tooth-borne restorations and orthodontic appliances. However, both hardware specifications of IOS and the presence of edentulous gaps in the dental model have an influence on the accuracy of the virtual model dataset.

Congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file: an in vitro analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A CHA-SB was fixed to an implant at the right first molar position in a dentate mandibular model and digitized by using 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (OC), Primescan (PS), and Virtuo Vivo (VV)] (n=8) and an industrial grade optical scanner (ATOS Core 80) (n=1) to generate standard tessellation language (STL) files of the test scans (CHA-SB-STLs) and the master reference model scan (MRM-STL). A reverse engineering software (Studio Geomagic X) was used to superimpose the proprietary library file of the CHASB over the generated STL files. Root mean square (RMS) values representing the deviations between the library file and the superimposed STL files were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA (α=.05). Qualitative analysis of the deviations was performed by visual inspection.

RESULTS

Differences between the congruence of the library file and the CHA-SB scans among different IOSs were nonsignificant (F=1.619, df= 3, P = .207). The single best result was 29 ±28.9 µm for OC, 30.8 ±29.6 µm for VV, 35.6 ±35.5 µm for T3, and 39.5 ±39.2 µm for PS, which were all above the deviation value of the scan performed by using the industrial-grade scanner (23.2 ±23.2 µm).

CONCLUSION

The dimensional congruence between the library file and the standard tessellation language file of the combined healing abutment-scan body system scans was similar when intraoral scanners with different acquisition technologies were used to scan a model with an implant.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scans of the tested intraoral scanners may result in crowns with similar positional accuracy, given the similarities in congruence of their scans with the library file.

Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials

Effects of implant angulation on digital implant impression accuracy remain controversial. Therefore, this in vitro study aimed to compare the digital implant impression trueness among models with different implant angulations and scan body materials. Six partially edentulous mandibular models with dental implants on the right second premolar and second molar areas were categorized according to the implant angulation of the distal implant (parallel, or 15° mesially or lingually tilted compared to the mesial implant) and scan body materials (polyetheretherketone or titanium). After scanning each model with intraoral scanners, the root mean square and within-tolerance values were calculated with respect to the reference, and nonparametric statistical tests were performed (α = .05). Scan data from models with the mesially tilted distal implant showed better trueness than the corresponding parallel and lingually tilted groups in terms of root mean square values (p < .017). The root mean square value in the titanium scan body group was lower than that in the polyetheretherketone scan body group (p < .001). However, the percentage within a tolerance of ± .1 mm was higher in the polyetheretherketone scan body group than in the titanium scan body group (p = .001). Intraoral scan data of models where the terminal implant was mesially tilted showed better trueness.

Effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans using a combined healing abutment-scan body system

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans conducted with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A CHA-SB system was fixed on implants at left central incisor, first premolar, and first molar sites in a dentate maxillary model. An industrial optical scanner (ATOS Core 80) was utilized to scan and generate a reference model (RM). The model was scanned by three operators (n = 8) using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). A software (GOM Inspect) was used to superimpose IOS test scans over RM and calculations (distance and angular deviations) were carried out to evaluate the accuracy of the scans. Data were compared with a 2-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were employed to resolve significant interactions for trueness and precision (α = .05).

RESULTS

Implant location affected the trueness (P ≤ .001) and the precision (P ≤ .020) (distance and angular deviations). The scans of the implant at the central incisor site had the highest trueness (distance and angular deviations) (P ≤ .016). The scans of the implant at molar site had the lowest precision (distance deviation data) (P ≤ .012). The scans of the implant at premolar site had lower precision (angular deviation data) than the scans of the implant at central incisor site (P = .016). Operators' effect on the accuracy of scans was not significant (P ≥  .051).

CONCLUSION

Implant location affected the scan accuracy of the combined healing abutment-scan body system. The scans of the implant at central incisor site had high trueness. The posterior the implant location, the lower was the precision of the scans. The accuracy of scans of different operators was similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Higher deviations found in scans of posterior maxilla compared with those in the anterior region may require increased chairside adjustments when crowns are to be fabricated using the scans of the tested healing abutment-scan body system. However, clinical studies are necessary to corroborate the findings.

Accuracy of 3D Printed and Digital Casts Produced From Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners With Different Scanning Technologies: In Vitro Study

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of printed to digital casts produced from various intraoral and extraoral scanners with different scanning technologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A conventional stone cast was fabricated from the reference typodont cast and scanned with two intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3 version 1.4.7.5, and Dental Wings version 2.1.0.421), and two extraoral scanners (S600 Arti, Zirkonzahn, and Ceramill map 600, Amann Girrbach GmbH). All digital scans were saved in the form of STL files and measurements were calculated using Geomagic analysis software. Two types of measurements were assessed on the casts: tooth- and arch-level measurements. Absolute errors were calculated by subtracting the measurements on 3D-printed, digital, and conventional stone casts from the measurements on the reference typodont cast. One-way ANOVA was used for comparing different measurement errors between groups. Linear regression was performed to determine the association between different explanatory variables, and the average measurement errors (dependent variable) adjusted to reference cast measurements. Regression coefficients (B) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

For both 3D printed, and digital casts, Dental Wings showed significantly greater error compared to other scanners and to the conventional stone cast at all measurements except AL (in the 3D printed modality only), while conventional casts showed the lowest error. Error was significantly higher in intraoral than extraoral scanners (B = 0.009, 95% CI = 0.005, 0.02), and in arch level measurements than tooth level measurements (B = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.04), and significantly lower in 3D printed than digital casts (B = -0.04, 95% CI = -0.05, -0.04). There were no statistically significant differences between measurement errors of both arches (maxillary and mandibular arches).

CONCLUSIONS

Extraoral scanners showed higher accuracy than intraoral scanners, and 3D-printed casts showed higher accuracy than their digital counterparts. Dental Wings scanner had the greatest measurement error. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: AAn in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system using different intraoral scanners.

METHODS

A partially edentulous model with an implant was fabricated, and a CHA-SB system was secured on the implant. The model was scanned using an industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80) and a master reference model was generated (MRM). The model was also scanned with 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [(Virtuo Vivo (VV), TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (CO), and Primescan (PS)]. Test scans (n = 8) were superimposed over the MRM using the best fit algorithm (GOM Inspect 2018; GOM GmbH). After superimpositions, distance and angular deviations at selected areas on CHA-SB system were calculated. The data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests for trueness and precision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The differences in trueness (distance deviations) among tested IOSs were nonsignificant (P=.652). VV presented the highest angular deviations (P ≤.031), and the angular deviations in other IOS scans were not found different (P ≥.378). The precision of distance deviation data was not significantly different among scanners (P=.052). For the precision of angular deviation data, significant differences were found among IOSs (P=.002). Compared with PS (P=.007) and T3 (P=.014), VV had significantly lower precision, which was not significantly different than that of CO (P=.815).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy (angular deviation) of scans of a combined healing abutment-scan body system on a single implant varied depending on the IOS. VirtuoVivo scans had the lowest accuracy in terms of angular deviations. When the distance deviation data were considered, scan accuracy of scanners was similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A recently introduced combined healing abutment-scan body system combines the acquisition of both the implant and the soft tissue. When different intraoral scanners scan the combined healing abutment-scan body system, the scan accuracy may vary.

Marginal and internal fit and intaglio surface trueness of interim crowns fabricated from tooth preparation of four finish line locations

This study evaluated the marginal and internal fit and intaglio surface trueness of interim crowns fabricated from tooth preparation scanned at four finish line locations. The right maxillary first molar tooth preparation model was fabricated using a ceramic material and placed in four finish line locations (supragingival, equigingival, subgingival, and subgingival with a cord). Intraoral scanning was performed. Crowns were designed based on the scanned area. Interim crowns were fabricated using a stereolithography three-dimensional (3D) printer (N = 16 per location). Marginal and internal fit were evaluated with a silicone replica technique. Intaglio surface trueness was evaluated using a 3D inspection software. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD test were performed for comparisons (α = 0.05). The marginal and internal fit showed significant differences according to locations (P < 0.05); the marginal fit showed the best results in the supragingival finish line (P < 0.05). Intaglio surface trueness was significantly different in the marginal region, with the highest value in the subgingival location (P < 0.05). Crowns fabricated on the subgingival finish line caused inaccurate marginal fit due to poor fabrication reproducibility of the marginal region. The use of an intraoral scanner should be decided on the clinical situation and needs.