In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions

Trueness of maxillomandibular relationship in 3D-printed and conventional casts

OBJECTIVES

To compare the trueness of maxillomandibular relationship between articulated 3D-printed and conventional diagnostic casts in maximum intercuspation (MIP).

METHODS

Reference casts were articulated in MIP, and scanned using a Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM, n = 1). Digital scans were made from the reference casts by using an intraoral scanner (IOS, n = 10) (Trios 4; 3Shape A/S). IOS scans were processed to create 3D-printed casts by using MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems) 3D-printers. The conventional workflow implemented vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions and Type IV stone. Stone and 3D-printed casts were articulated and digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape A/S). The 3D-printed casts were scanned on two occasions: with and without positioning pins. Inter-arch distances and 3D-contact area were measured and compared. Statistical tests used were Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Welch's t-test, and 2-way ANOVA (α=0.05).

RESULTS

IOS group showed similar or better maxillomandibular relationship trueness than stone casts and 3D-printed casts (p < 0.05). 3D-contact area analysis showed similar deviations between 3D-printed and stone casts (p > 0.05). The choice of 3D-printer and presence of positioning pins on the casts significantly influenced maxillomandibular relationship trueness (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Articulated 3D-printed and stone casts exhibited similar maxillomandibular relationship trueness.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Although 3D-printing methods can introduce a considerable amount of deviations, the maxillomandibular relationship trueness of articulated 3D-printed and stone casts in MIP can be considered similar.

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

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Optical impressions assessment for overlay restorations with rubber dam: A clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The possibility of making impressions of teeth prepared with a rubber dam in place has been proposed; however, this requires trimming and rescanning the mesh, which has been described as a cause of accuracy loss. This study aims to clinically determine whether overlay restorations obtained from a scan with a rubber dam in place have equivalent marginal fit, contact points, and occlusal fit to the same type of restorations obtained from a scan without a rubber dam.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty patients who underwent overlay restoration of a molar with at least one neighbouring tooth were selected. After tooth preparation, two scans were performed: one without a rubber dam and the other with a rubber dam. Restorations were randomly created from one scan or another. The marginal fit, interproximal contact points, and occlusal fit were evaluated clinically. Two meshes, with and without rubber dams, were also compared.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the clinical evaluation of the overlays made of the two meshes. The trueness of the mesh from the impression made with a rubber dam with respect to the mesh without a rubber dam was about 40 µm in the critical areas of the preparation (margins, intaglio, and interproximal contact points).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study show that under the conditions performed and with the equipment used, there are no significant clinical differences between overlay restorations made from a scan with a rubber dam and those made from a scan without a rubber dam.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scanning with a rubber dam in place may be a valid option for certain types of restorations under certain clinical conditions.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of the trueness and precision of conventional impressions versus digital scans for the all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of digitizing conventional impressions to intraoral surface scans for all-on-four treatment in the maxillary arch.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary arch model with four implants placed in an all-on-four design was fabricated. Intraoral surface scans (n = 10) were obtained using an intraoral scanner after scan body insertion. For conventional polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the model, implant copings were inserted into the implant fixation for implant level, opened tray impressions (n = 10). The model and conventional impressions were digitized to obtain digital files. A reference file was created using a laboratory-scanned conventional standard tessellation language (STL) file with analog to scan the body using exocad software. STL datasets from the two digital and conventional impression groups were superimposed with reference files to assess the 3D deviations. Two-way ANOVA and paired-samples t-test was performed to assess the difference in trueness and examine the effects of impression technique and implant angulation on the deviation amount.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the conventional impression and intraoral surface scan groups F(1, 76) = 2.705, p = 0.104. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and digital straight implants and between conventional and digital tilted implants F(1, 76) = .041, p = 0.841. No significant differences were found between conventional straight and conventional tilted implants p = 0.07 and between digital straight and digital tilted implants p = 0.08.

CONCLUSION

Digital scans were more accurate than conventional impressions. The digital straight implants were more accurate than the conventional straight implants, and the digital tilted implants were more accurate than the conventional tilted implants, with higher accuracy for digital straight implants.

Use of the universal scan template to achieve a predictable optical impression: Preliminary data of a case series study in complete edentulous patients

BACKGROUND

Full-arch IOS scan of edentulous areas rehabilitated with dental implants is nowadays still described as an unpredictable procedure. To improve the accuracy, a universal scan template (UST®) is proposed in this article. The clinician can easily assemble the template with a mechanical coupling, by matching the scan bodies with objects of known dimension characterized by specific markers. The UST® facilitates the scanning of an entire arch on scan bodies, reducing the learning curve, simplifying acquisition movements, shortening the scanning time, and drastically reducing the risk of distortions and aberrations of the scans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a case series study on 12 patients, the improvement in the accuracy of the scans with UST® was validated by comparing the STL files derived from scans with and without the guide in place. A titanium bar was produced from each optical impression.

RESULTS

The bars obtained from the optical impressions taken without UST® were found to be nonpassive in the mouth in the majority of the cases. On the contrary with the use of UST® we obtained 12 passive prosthetic rehabilitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed solution may represent a valid method to improve the predictability of full arch optical impressions on implants.

Accuracy of intraoral optical scan versus stereophotogrammetry for complete-arch digital implant impression: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To assess and compare the accuracies of intraoral scanners (IOS) and stereophotogrammetry (SPG) devices for complete-arch digital implant impressions.

METHODS

A 4-analog model was digitized using a desk scanner to obtain a reference file. Thirty test scans were conducted using the investigated IOS device, while an additional 30 scans were performed using the SPG device. Using the best-fit algorithm, the resulting 60 test files were aligned with the reference file. Linear (ΔX, ΔY, and ΔZ-axis) and angular deviations (ΔANGLE) were evaluated. Three-dimensional (3D) deviation was calculated based on the Euclidean distance (ΔEUC). The analysis was stratified according to the scanning device and implant position. Fisher's F and t-tests were used to compare the variances and expected values of the two scanning systems.

RESULTS

IOS expressed a higher 3D (ΔEUC) mean deviation than SPG (52.8 µm vs. 33.4 µm, P < 0.0001), with extreme measurements up to 181.9 µm. A significantly higher standard deviation (SD) was associated with IOS (37.1 µm vs. 17.7 µm, P < 0.0001). Considering angular deviations, the IOS showed slightly higher angular mean deviations (ΔANGLE) than the SPG (0.28° vs. 0.24°, P = 0.0022), with extreme measurements of up to 0.73°. The SPG SD values were significantly lower than the IOS SD values (0.14° vs. 0.04°, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The SPG showed significantly higher 3D and angular accuracies for complete arch implant impressions, with consistent repeatability. IOS scanning revealed significantly higher extreme deviations exceeding the acceptable threshold value. Despite study limitations, SPG appears more feasible than IOS for complete-arch digital implant impressions.

Effect of prefabricated auxiliary devices and scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant digital impressions

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of prefabricated auxiliary devices (PAD) and scanning patterns on the accuracy of complete-arch implant digital impressions.

METHODS

An edentulous maxillary model was inserted with four parallel implant analogs and four PAD. The model was scanned with D2000 dental laboratory scanner as the reference scans. Test scans were obtained by 8 different scanning patterns (SP), which including SPA, SPB, SPC, SPD, SPE, SPF, SPG and SPH, with (test group) or without (control group) using the PAD by an intraoral scanner (Aoralscan 3, 3DShining). SPA was the scanning pattern recommended by the manufacturer. Each scanning time was recorded. The related files were imported into inspection software for assessment. Aligned Ranks Transformation ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to evaluate the values. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.

RESULTS

The scanning patterns significantly influenced the linear accuracy in the test group and the scanning time for both groups. Lower linear trueness in the test group was found in SPF (p<0.05) and SPG (p<0.05). Longer scanning time was found in SPB and SPG for both groups. The test group demonstrated linear accuracy enhancement in all the scanning patterns; angular trueness enhancement was seen in SPA (p<0.05), SPC (p<0.01) and SPH (p<0.01). Significant longer scanning time was found in SPB (p<0.05), SPF (p<0.05), SPG (p<0.05) and SPH (p<0.05) when using PAD.

CONCLUSION

The scanning patterns impact the accuracy differently depending on the PAD's existence. The scanning time can be significantly influenced by the scanning patterns and the PAD.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In daily clinical practice, selecting a suitable scanning pattern is significant in achieving accurate digital impressions. The PAD demonstrated effective linear accuracy enhancement in all the scanning patterns tested.

CAD-CAM and analog occlusal splints comparison based on the amount of occlusal adjustments. 3D analysis of the volumetric changes: A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the volumetric changes on occlusal surface of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) occlusal devices fabricated following a fully digital workflow after occlusal adjustment, compared to those fabricated with an analog workflow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eight participants were included in this clinical pilot study, receiving two different occlusal devices fabricated with two different workflows, fully analog and fully digital. Every occlusal device was scanned before and after the occlusal adjustments to compare the volumetric changes using a reverse engineering software program. Moreover, three independent evaluators assessed a semi-quantitative and qualitative comparison using visual analog scale and dichotomous evaluation. The Shapiro-Wilk test was performed to validate normal distribution assumption, and a dependent t-Student test for paired variables was used to determine statistically significant differences (p-value < 0.05).

RESULTS

The root mean square value was extracted from the 3-Dimensional (3D) analysis of the occlusal devices. The average values of the root mean square were higher for the analogic technique (0.23 ± 0.10 mm) than the digital technique (0.14 ± 0.07 mm) but the differences were not statistically significant (paired t-Student test; p = 0.106) between the two fabrication techniques. The semiquantitative visual analog scale values between the impression for the digital (5.08 ± 2.4 cm) and analog (3.80 ± 3.3 cm) technique were significant (p < 0.001), and statistically significant differences values were assessed for evaluator 3 compared to the other evaluators (p < 0.05). However, the three evaluators agreed on the qualitative dichotomous evaluation in 62% of the cases, and at least two evaluators agreed in 100% of the evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

Occlusal devices fabricated following a fully digital workflow resulted in fewer occlusal adjustments, as they could be a valid alternative to those fabricated following an analog workflow.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Fabricated occlusal devices following a fully digital workflow could have some advantages over analog workflow such reduce occlusal adjustments at delivery appointment, which can result in reduced chair time and therefore increased comfort for the patient and clinician.

Accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of stereophotogrammetry systems for acquiring 3D dental implant positions: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To evaluate accuracy, scanning time, and patient satisfaction of photogrammetry (PG) systems for recording the 3D position of dental implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the use of commercially available PG systems were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 14 articles were included: 3 in vivo, 6 in vitro, and 6 case report manuscripts. One clinical study evaluated trueness, another one tested precision, and the third one assessed impression time and patient and operator satisfaction. All the in vitro studies evaluated the trueness and precision of a PG system. Additionally, all the reviewed studies investigated completely edentulous conditions with multiple implants. The number of placed implants per arch among the reviewed clinical studies varied from 4 to 8 implants, while the number of implants placed on the reference casts included 4, 5, 6, or 8 implants. Not all the studies compared the accuracy of PG systems with conventional impression methods, using intraoral scanners as additional experimental groups. For the PIC system, trueness ranged from 10 to 49 μm and precision ranged from 5 to 65 μm. For the iCam4D system, trueness ranged from 24 to 77 μm and the precision value ranged from 2 to 203 μm.

CONCLUSIONS

PG systems may provide a reliable alternative for acquiring the 3D position of dental implants. However, this conclusion should be interpreted carefully, as one study reported a mean precision value of one PG system higher than the clinically acceptable discrepancy. Lower scanning time and higher patient and operator satisfaction have been reported when compared with conventional techniques. Further studies are needed to increase the evidence regarding the accuracy, scanning time, and patient and operator satisfaction of the commercially available PG systems.

Full-arch restoration with the NEXUS IOS® system: A retrospective clinical evaluation of 37 restorations after a one year of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Report the results with a novel workflow of digital restoration for completely edentulous patients with implant supported full arch fixed dental prostheses (ISFDP).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective clinical study was based on the evaluation from a cohort of 29 patients restored with 37 ISFDP designed and manufactured from the data captured by a direct intraoral scan, using a novel full digital system (NEXUS IOS®, Osteon Medical, a Keystone Dental Group company, Melbourne, Australia). Data was collected over a 3-year period, in six different dental centers. This study reported on the clinical parameters including: precision of marginal fit, functional and aesthetic integration of Nexus ISFDP. All patients were followed for a period of one year post delivery. Implant survival, biologic and prosthetic complications were assessed, at one year. A statistical analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

All 37 ISFDP were deemed clinically acceptable on insertion. Implant survival at one year was 100 %. The biologic and prosthetic complications were minimal during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

ISFDP, designed and manufactured using the NEXUS IOS® system, are clinically acceptable, with a low incidence of complications at one year. Long-term clinical studies are needed.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Within the limitations of this study (retrospective design, small patient sample, limited follow-up) the NEXUS IOS® system seems to represent a viable solution for the restoration of completely edentulous patients with ISFDP, in a full digital workflow.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Evaluation of the accuracy of intraoral scanners for complete-arch scanning: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the complete-arch scanning accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) to that of reference standard tessellation language (STL) files.

DATA

Studies comparing the trueness and precision of IOS STL files with those of reference STL scans for different arch types (dentate, edentulous, completely edentulous with implants, and partially edentulous with implants) were included in this study.

SOURCES

An electronic search of five databases restricted to the English Language was conducted in October 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

A total of 3,815 studies were identified, of which 114 were eligible for inclusion. After study selection and data extraction, pair-wise comparison and NMA were performed to define the accuracy of scanning for four arch subgroups using four outcomes (trueness and precision expressed as mean absolute deviation and root mean square values). Cochrane guidelines and the QUADAS-2 tool were used to assess the risk of bias. GRADE was used for certainty assessment.

RESULTS

Fifty-three articles were included in this NMA. Altogether, 26 IOSs were compared directly and indirectly in 10 network systems. The accuracy of IOSs scans were not significantly different from the reference scans for dentate arches (three IOSs), edentulous arches (three IOSs), and completely edentulous arches with implants (one IOS). The accuracy of the IOSs was significantly different from the reference scans for partially edentulous arches with implants. Significant accuracy differences were found between the IOSs, regardless of clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of complete-arch scanning by IOSs differs based on clinical scenarios.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Different IOSs should be used according to the complete arch type.

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.

Enhancing intraoral scanner accuracy using scan aid for multiple implants in the edentulous arch: An in vivo study

OBJECTIVES

Intraoral scans of multiple implants in the edentulous arch are challenged by the absence of a distinct surface morphology between scan bodies. A scan aid was applied in such situation and evaluated for intraoral scanning accuracy in vivo.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

87 implants in 22 patients were scanned with scan aid (SA) and without scan aid (NO) using two different intraoral scanners (CS3600 [CS] and TRIOS3 [TR]). Master casts were digitized by a laboratory scanner. Virtual models were superimposed using an inspection software and Linear deviation and precision were measured. Statistical analysis was performed using linear mixed models (α = .05).

RESULTS

Total mean linear deviation within the CS group was 189 μm without scan aid and 135 μm when using the scan aid. The TR group's total mean deviation was 165 μm with and without a scan aid. Significant improvement with scan aid was observed for the CS group (p = .001), and no difference was found in the TR group. 96% of scan bodies were successfully scanned in the TR-SA group compared to 86% for the TR-NO group, 83% for the CS-SA, and 70% for the CS-NO group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The evaluated scan aid improved linear deviation compared to unsplinted scans for the CS group but not for the TR group. These differences could originate from different scanning technologies used, active triangulation (CS) and confocal microscopy (TR). The scan aid improved the ability to recognize scan bodies successfully with both systems, which could have a favorable clinical impact overall.

Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the accuracy of digital implant impressions with or without prefabricated landmarks compared with the conventional method in the edentulous mandible.

METHODS

An edentulous mandibular stone cast with implant abutment analogs and scan bodies in FDI #46, 43, 33, and 36 served as the master model. Intraoral scanner groups (IOS) were divided into four subgroups: IOS-NT (no landmarks + Trios 4 scanner), IOS-NA (no landmarks + Aoralscan 3 scanner), IOS-YT (landmarks + Trios 4 scanner), and IOS-YA (landmarks + Aoralscan 3 scanner) (n=10). Landmarks were attached to the scan bodies with resin to improve scanning fluency. Conventional open-trayed technique (CNV) was performed with the 3D-printed splinting frameworks (n=10). The master model and conventional castings were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the former served as the reference model. Overall distance and angle deviations between scan bodies were measured to determine trueness and precision. The ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test compared CNV group to scans without landmarks, while a generalized linear model analyzed scan groups with and without landmarks.

RESULTS

Compared to the CNV group, the IOS-NA and IOS-NT groups showed higher overall distance trueness (p=.009), and precision (distance, p<.001 and angular, p<.001). With landmarks, the IOS-YA group had higher overall trueness (distance, p<.001 and angular, p<.001) than the IOS-NA group, and the IOS-YT group has higher distance trueness (p=.041) than the IOS-NT group. Moreover, the precision in distance and angle was significantly improved for IOS-YA and IOS-YT groups, compared with the IOS-NA (p<.001) and IOS-NT (p<.001) groups separately.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital scans were more accurate than conventional splinting open-trayed impressions. Prefabricated landmarks significantly improved the accuracy of full-arch implant digital scans, regardless of the scanner used.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Prefabricated landmarks can enhance the accuracy of intraoral scanners for full-arch implant rehabilitation, improving scanning efficiency and clinical outcomes.

In vitro comparison of five desktop scanners and an industrial scanner in the evaluation of an intraoral scanner accuracy

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the precision of ATOS industrial, 3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab desktop, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners. The second aim was to compare the trueness of Mediti700 assessed by ATOS and desktop scanners.

METHODS

Four plastic dentate models with 7-12 abutments prepared for complete arch fixed dentures were scanned by all scanners three times. Scans were segmented to retain only the abutments. The precision and trueness were calculated by superimposing scans with the best-fit algorithm. The mean absolute distance was calculated between the scan surfaces. The precision was calculated based on the 12 repeats. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing the desktop and IOS scans to the industrial scans. IOS was also aligned with the two most accurate desktop scanners.

RESULTS

The precision of 3ShapeE4 and MeditT710 (3-4μm) was only slightly lower than that of ATOS (1.7μm, p<0.001) and significantly higher than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (6-10 μm, p<0.001). The trueness was the highest for the 3Shape E4 (12-13 μm) and Medit T710 (13-16 μm) without significant difference. They were significantly better than CeramillMap400, CSNeo, and PlanScanLab (22-31μm, p<0.001). Accordingly, the Mediti700 trueness was evaluated by ATOS, 3ShapeE4, and MeditT710. The three trueness was not significantly different; ATOS (23-26 μm), 3Shape E4 (22-25 μm), and Medit T710 (20-23 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

All desktop scanners had the acceptable accuracy required for a complete arch-fixed prosthesis. The 3Shape E4 and the Medit T710 might be used as reference scanners for studying IOS accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

3ShapeE4, MeditT710, CeramillMap400, CSNeo, PlanScanLab laboratory, and Mediti700 intraoral scanners can be used for the prosthetic workflow in a complete arch. 3ShapeE4 and the MeditT710 could be used to test the accuracy of various phases of a laboratory workflow, replacing the industrial scanners.

A modified scan technique for multiple abutment teeth using the trim and lock function

OBJECTIVES

To describe a new protocol for digital scanning of multiple abutment teeth using the trim and lock software tools.

METHODS

A reverse workflow technique was used. Scanning was performed with the interim restoration in position. The abutment teeth were then trimmed from the scan. The retraction cord or interim restoration from either the first mesial or distal abutment tooth was removed and only that tooth was scanned, allowing the dentist to easily manage gingival displacement and keep the tooth dry from crevicular fluid and saliva. Consequently, the preparation margin remained visible and uncontaminated during the scan. The adjacent abutment teeth detected in the scan were deleted from it, and the scan was then locked using a tool of the scanning software. Next, the retraction cord or interim restoration of the next abutment tooth was removed, and only that tooth was scanned. The procedure was repeated until all prepared teeth were individually scanned.

RESULTS

The technique presented here facilitated the scanning of multiple abutment teeth in a simple and predictable way by utilizing the trim and lock surface tools of the scanning software and helped in avoiding closure of the gingival crevice.

CONCLUSIONS

Splitting the scan for a complex case with multiple abutment teeth allows reliable 3D acquisition of the finish line of each abutment tooth. Therefore, this technique simplifies the full-arch intraoral scanning process and can improve treatment efficiency.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The trim and lock tool allows scanning of each prepared abutment tooth separately, transforming a full-arch impression into multiple single scans. This technique helps to easily manage gingival displacement and maintain an uncontaminated and dry preparation margin during the scan.

Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device

Background/purpose

Digital impressions using intraoral scanners have recently gained popularity. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the fit of full-arch screw-retained cobalt-chromium frameworks fabricated via two different digital impression methods.

Materials and methods

An edentulous resin master model with four dental implants was fabricated. Forty cobalt-chromium superstructures were fabricated and evaluated according to four groups. In Group 1, the superstructures were evaluated using an intraoral scanner to generate digital impressions. Group 2 relied on the help of an auxiliary geometric appliance in generation of digital impressions via intraoral scanner. The traditional method of splinted open-tray conventional impressions was designated for Group 3. Finally, the control group (Group 4) relied on scanning of the master model directly with a laboratory scanner. Vertical marginal discrepancy was evaluated, and data obtained were statistically analyzed.

Results

The highest mean vertical marginal gap value (80.86 ± 50.06 μm) was observed for Group 1 and statistically higher than Group 2, 3, and 4 (P < 0.05). The lowest mean vertical marginal gap value (41.98 ± 26.33 μm) was measured from Group 4 and statistically similar to Group 2 and 3 (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

It has been suggested that the use of auxiliary geometric appliances yields increased scanning accuracy. Frameworks fabricated using the traditional splinted open-tray technique were more reliable compared to those frameworks from digital impressions.

Accuracy and precision of intraoral scanners for shade matching: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The use of intraoral scanners is rising in prosthetic dentistry; however, systematic analysis of their accuracy and precision for shade matching is scarce.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of intraoral scanners for shade matching.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In addition to a manual search, an electronic systematic search was conducted on MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases. English-language original studies published between January 1, 2010 and March 1, 2022 with intraoral or digital scanners were chosen based on the keywords of tooth color or shade selection or determination, color or shade matching, accuracy, validity, or trueness, and precision, repeatability, or reproducibility as inclusive criteria. Two reviewers independently performed the literature search, selected the studies, collected the data from the studies included, and evaluated the quality of the studies included using a quality assessment method and the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies. A third reviewer resolved disagreements.

RESULTS

A total of 17 articles concerning the shade matching accuracy and precision of intraoral scanners were selected and reviewed. Among them, 4 articles evaluated only accuracy, 4 articles assessed only precision, and 9 articles investigated both accuracy and precision. Ten articles reported low levels of shade matching accuracy for intraoral scanners, while 11 articles reported high levels of shade matching precision for intraoral scanners.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current literature, intraoral scanners show acceptable precision but unacceptable accuracy for shade matching.

Reliability and Time Efficiency of Digital vs. Analog Bite Registration Technique for the Manufacture of Full-Arch Fixed Implant Prostheses

Objective: Information about full-digital protocols for bite registration with intraoral scanners on multiple implants in the edentulous jaw is scarce. The purpose of this comparative in vivo study was to investigate the reliability and time efficiency of a novel full-digital bite registration technique for the manufacture of full-arch maxillary fixed implant prostheses. Material and methods: In ten patients, a full-arch maxillary fixed implant prosthesis was manufactured on multi-unit abutment level through an analog prosthetic workflow. The bite registration was performed with use of a screw-retained polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) verification jig with detachable wax rim. To articulate the definitive edentulous maxillary implant cast in centric relation at the appropriate occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) to the mandibular antagonist cast, a type II articulator (Artex, Amann Girrbach) was used. Three to six months later, a full-digital bite registration was performed with use of dual-function scan bodies and bilateral connected bite pillars. The bite pillars screwed into the scan bodies were used to adjust and articulate the edentulous maxillary implant arch to the mandibular antagonist arch at the defined OVD. Treatment time for analog and digital bite registration technique was measured in each patient. The reliability of the digital bite registration technique was evaluated by 3D comparison of two sets of stereo lithographic (STL) files obtained from each patient. The three-dimensional deviation was defined along the X-, Y- and Z-axes (Geomagic Control X, 3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA). Results: The treatment time for digital bite registration using dual-function scan bodies and bite pillars was significantly shorter than analog bite registration with verification jig and wax rim (60.30%, SD 5.72%). Minor differences between the two techniques were observed with a linear deviation range of 1115 µm (SD 668 µm) overall, 46.2 µm (SD 731.3 µm) along the X-axis, −200.3 µm (SD 744.3 µm) along the Y-axis and 67.1 µm (SD 752.2 µm) along the Z-axis. Bilateral balanced contacts were registered in all patients during full-digital bite registration. Conclusions: The novel digital bite registration technique with dual-function scan bodies and bite pillars allows for a full-digital workflow for full-arch implant supported restorations. The digital bite workflow was 60% faster, and the overall deviation was around 1 mm, which can be considered clinically acceptable.

Digital VS Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of comparative clinical studies assessing the accuracy of full-arch digital versus conventional implant impressions. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the three-dimensional (3D) deviations between full-arch digital and conventional implant impressions for edentulous maxillae and mandibles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-seven patients (36 edentulous jaws) were treated with one-piece, screw-retained implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs). Twenty-one jaws were maxillary, and 15 were mandibular. Full-arch conventional impressions and intraoral digital scans with scan bodies and an intraoral scanner had been taken during the impression phase. Following verification of the conventional stone casts, the casts were digitized. The generated standard tessellation language (STL) files from both impression techniques were merged and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary aim was to evaluate the accuracy between conventional and digital full-arch scans, while the effect of the edentulous jaw in 3D accuracy was the secondary aim.

RESULTS

The cumulative 3D (mean ±SD) deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full-arch digital scans and digitized stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 88 ±24 μm. In the maxillary group, the mean ±SD 3D deviation was 85 ±25 μm, compared to 92 ±23 μm for the mandibular group (P = .444).

CONCLUSION

The 3D implant deviations found between the full-arch digital and conventional impressions lie within the clinically acceptable threshold. No statistically significant difference was identified between maxillary and mandibular jaws in terms of 3D deviations. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.