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

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Impact of Scanbody Geometry and CAD Software on Determining 3D Implant Position

The implementation of CAD software in the digital production of implant prosthetics stands as a pivotal aspect of clinical dentistry, necessitating high precision in the alignment of implant scanbodies. This study investigates the influence of scanbody geometry and the method of superimposing in CAD software when determining 3D implant position. A standardized titanium model with three bone-level implants was digitized to create reference STL files, and 10 intraoral scans were performed on Medentika and NT-Trading scanbodies. To determine implant position, the generated STL files were imported into the Exocad CAD software and superimposed-automatically and manually-with the scanbody geometries stored within the software's shape library. Position accuracy was determined by a comparison of the 3D-defined scanbody points from the STL matching files with those from the reference STL files. The R statistical software was used for the evaluation of the data. In addition, mixed linear models and a significance level of 0.05 were applied to calculate the p-values. The manual overlay method was significantly more accurate than the automatic overlays for both scanbody types. The Medentika scanbodies showed slightly superior precision compared to the NT-Trading scanbodies. Both scanbody geometry and the type of alignment in the CAD software significantly affect digital workflow accuracy. Manual verification and adjustment of the automatic alignment process are essential for precise implant positioning.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

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 .

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

OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Influence of implant reference on the scanning accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured by using a photogrammetry system

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Photogrammetry has been reported to be a reliable digital alternative for recording implant positions; however, the factors that may impact the accuracy of photogrammetry techniques remain unknown.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of the implant reference on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans acquired by using a photogrammetry system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An edentulous cast with 6 implant abutment analogs (MultiUnit Abutment Plus Replica) was obtained and digitized by using a laboratory scanner (T710; Medit). A photogrammetry system (PIC System) was selected to obtain complete arch implant scans. An optical marker (PIC Transfer, HC MUA Metal; PIC Dental) was positioned on each implant abutment of the reference cast. Each optical marker code and position was determined in the photogrammetry software program. Three groups were created based on the implant reference selected before acquiring the photogrammetry scans: right first molar (IPR-3 group), left canine (IPR-11 group), and left first molar (IPR-14 group) (n=30). Euclidean linear and angular measurements were obtained on the digitized reference cast and used to compare the discrepancies with the same measurements obtained on each experimental scan. One-way ANOVA and the Tukey tests were used to analyze the trueness data. The Levene test was used to analyze the precision values (α=.05 for all tests).

RESULTS

One-way ANOVA revealed significant linear (P=.003) and angular (P=.009) trueness differences among the groups tested. Additionally, the Tukey test showed that the IPR-11 and IPR-14 groups had significantly different linear (P<.001) and angular trueness (P<.001). The Levene test showed no significant precision linear (P=.197) and angular (P=.235) discrepancies among the groups tested. The IPR-3 group obtained the highest trueness (P<.001) and precision (P<.001) values among the groups tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant reference impacted the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using the photogrammetry system tested. However, a trueness ±precision linear discrepancy of 6 ±3 µm and an angular discrepancy of 0.01 ±0.01 degrees were measured among the groups tested; therefore, the impact of the discrepancy measured should not be clinically significant.