Effect of material type, torque value, and sterilization on linear displacements of a scan body: An in vitro study

Enhancing scanning accuracy of digital implant scans: A systematic review on application methods of scan bodies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Scan bodies play a crucial role in the accuracy of digital implant scans by serving as implant-positioning transfer devices. Previous literature has demonstrated the effects of scan body characteristics on the accuracy of digital implant scans. However, the optimal application methods of scan bodies to enhance scanning accuracy remain unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the optimal application methods of scan bodies to enhance the accuracy of digital implant scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted by using the PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from November 2018 to 2023. Relevant references from the included studies were further screened manually for eligibility. Following the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) criteria, a research question focused on identifying the optimal application method for effectively using scan bodies to enhance scanning accuracy was developed. Specific inclusion criteria involved in vitro and in vivo studies. The Checklist for Reporting In Vitro Studies (CRIS) guidelines were followed and the assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies was conducted.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in this systematic review. Two studies investigated the effect of scan body bevel orientation on the accuracy of digital implant scans, and 3 examined the impact of tightening torque on scan bodies. Among the studies focusing on completely edentulous arches, 5 recommended the use of auxiliary geometric devices on the dental arch to enhance scanning accuracy. However, 2 studies reported no improvements in accuracy after splinting scan bodies with thread.

CONCLUSIONS

Different techniques for applying scan bodies, such as configuring bevel orientation, adjusting tightening torque, and attaching auxiliary geometric devices, influence the accuracy of digital implant scans. For scanning completely edentulous arches, attaching auxiliary devices to scan bodies to cover the edentulous ridge effectively enhances scanning accuracy.

Positional accuracy of a single implant analog in additively manufactured casts in biobased model resin

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the positional accuracy of implant analogs in biobased model resin by comparing them to that of implant analogs in model resin casts and conventional analogs in dental stone casts.

METHODS

Polyvinylsiloxane impressions of a partially edentulous mandibular model with a single implant were made and poured in type IV dental stone. The same model was also digitized with an intraoral scanner and additively manufactured implant casts were fabricated in biobased model resin (FotoDent biobased model) and model resin (FotoDent model 2 beige-opaque) (n = 8). All casts and the model were digitized with a laboratory scanner, and the scan files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software (Geomagic Control X). The linear deviations of 2 standardized points on the scan body used during digitization were automatically calculated on x-, y-, and z-axes. Average deviations were used to define precision, and 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey HSD tests were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Biobased model resin led to higher deviations than dental stone (all axes, P ≤ 0.031) and model resin (y-axis, P = 0.015). Biobased model resin resulted in the lowest precision of implant analog position (P ≤ 0.049). The difference in the positional accuracy of implant analogs of model resin and stone casts was nonsignificant (P ≥ 0.196).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant analogs in biobased model resin casts mostly had lower positional accuracy, whereas those in model resin and stone casts had similar positional accuracy. Regardless of the material, analogs deviated more towards mesial, while buccal deviations in additively manufactured casts and lingual deviations in stone casts were more prominent.

Effect of scan body designs and internal conical angles on the 3-dimensional accuracy of implant digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Axial displacement is inevitable when connecting scan bodies to implants for digital scans using intraoral scanners, and axial displacement may reduce implant position accuracy in digital casts. However, studies assessing scan body type and accuracy are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the linear and angular displacements of implants in digital casts using 2 scan body types with or without a vertical stop to minimize the axial displacement and 2 internal conical connection implants (ICCIs) with different internal conical angles.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two identical reference casts were fabricated from epoxy resin by duplicating a partially edentulous mandibular dentiform. Each cast received 3 implants in the left first premolar, first molar, and second molar regions. One cast received an ICCI with a 7-degree internal conical angle (7-degree ICCI), and the other received an ICCI with an 11-degree internal conical angle (11-degree ICCI). A 10-mm polyetheretherketone (PEEK) cube was attached to the buccal area of the mandibular second premolar of each reference cast. A vertical stop was used in the experimental scan bodies to minimize the axial displacement, and conventional scan bodies were hand tightened to the implants in the reference casts. An intraoral scanner was used to fabricate 4 digital cast groups (2 implant types and 2 scan body types; each group had 10 casts). A coordinate measuring machine and digital inspection software program were used to measure the implant platform centroids (x, y, z) and projection angles (θXY, θYZ, θZX) of implant long axes in the reference and digital casts, respectively. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and linear mixed model both with Tukey post hoc and 2-way ANOVA tests were performed to assess the significance of linear and angular displacements between groups (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences were noted in all linear displacement variables among the 4 digital cast groups, except for Δx in the left first premolar implant. For the 7-degree ICCI, the linear displacement was statistically similar in the experimental and conventional scan bodies. However, for the 11-degree ICCIs, the experimental scan body group resulted in significantly smaller Δy, Δz, and Δd (Δd2=Δx2+Δy2+Δz2) than the conventional scan body group (P<.05). Overall, the 11-degree ICCIs demonstrated a significantly greater linear displacement than the 7-degree ICCI, regardless of the scan body type (P<.05). Significant differences between the test groups were observed for 10 of the 12 angular displacement variables (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The 11-degree ICCIs demonstrated significantly greater linear displacements in Δy, Δz, and Δr than the 7-degree ICCIs. The experimental scan bodies with a vertical stop demonstrated significantly smaller linear displacements in the 11-degree ICCIs.

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.

Impact of scanning distance on the accuracy of a photogrammetry system

PURPOSE

To measure the impact of the scanning distance on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans acquired by using a photogrammetry (PG) system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An edentulous cast with 6 implant abutment analogs was obtained. A brand new implant scan body was positioned on each implant abutment and digitized using an extraoral scanner (T710; Medit) and the reference file was obtained. Three groups were created based on the scanning distance used to acquire complete-arch implant scans by using a PG (PIC System; PIC Dental): 20 (20 group), 30 (30 group), and 35 cm (35 group). An optical marker (PIC Transfer, HC MUA Metal; PIC Dental) was placed on each implant abutment and a total of thirty scans per group were acquired. Euclidean linear and angular measurements were obtained on the reference file was obtained and used to compare the discrepancies with the same measurements obtained on each experimental scan. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze trueness. The Levene test was used to analyze the precision values (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Significant linear (P < .001) and angular trueness (P < .001) discrepancies were found among the groups. For linear trueness, Tukey test showed that the 20 and 30 groups (P < .001) and 30 and 35 groups were different (P < .001). For angular trueness, the Tukey test revealed that 20 and 30 groups (P = .003), 20 and 35 (P < .001), and 30 and 35 groups were different (P < .001) The Levene test showed no significant linear precision (P = .197) and angular discrepancies (P = .229) among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The scanning distance influenced the trueness of complete-arch implant scans obtained with the PG method tested. The maximum linear trueness mean discrepancy among the groups tested was 10 µm and the maximum angular trueness mean discrepancy among the groups tested was 0.02 .

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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