Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study

Deviation parameters of intraoral scanning with and without artificial markers versus conventional impression of total, partial and congenital nasal defects: A pilot non-randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

This pilot clinical trial aimed to investigate accuracy of intra-oral scanning (IOS) with and without artificial reference markers in capturing total, subtotal and congenital nasal defects.

BASIC PROCEDURES

Thirteen patients with 3 types of nasal defects were selected and digitally scanned using an IOS with (ScM) and without artificial markers (Sc). Patients were grouped as follows; Group T (total nasal defect), Group P (partial/subtotal nasal defect), Group C (congenital defect). Silicone impressions of the defects were made and poured to get a model that was scanned using a Desktop scanner (Imp). The standard tessellation language (STL) files obtained from IOS were registered and compared to each other using a processing software. RMS, positive and negative average values were used to report deviations between the scans. Kruskal Wallis test was used to study the effect of defect type, while Friedmann was used to study the effect of impression technique. Results were considered significant at P≤.05.

MAIN FINDINGS

All deviation values showed statistically significant differences among the 3 studied nasal defects and among the 3 investigated impression techniques. The smallest deviation values were recorded in Sc-ScM of congenital defects (RMS= 0.13±0.04, +average=0.08±0.01, -average=-0.09±0.02), while the largest deviation values were recorded in IMP-Sc in the total defects (RMS= 0.38±0.05, +average=0.29±0.04, -average=-0.29±0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that the nasal defect type and the use of artificial markers during scanning affect the deviation parameters of the obtained scan. The combined effect of the studied parameters calls for the use of markers in when scanning total nasal defects.

Evaluating the accuracy of CEREC intraoral scanners for inlay restorations: impact of adjacent tooth materials

BACKGROUND

The accuracy of intraoral scanning is critical for computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing workflows in dentistry. However, data regarding the scanning accuracy of various adjacent restorative materials and intraoral scanners are lacking. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of adjacent restorative material type and CEREC's intraoral scanners on the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for inlay cavities.

METHODS

The artificial tooth was prepared with an occlusal cavity depth of 2 mm, a proximal box width at the gingival floor of 1.5 mm, and an equi-gingival margin extended disto-occlusally at the transition line angle on both the lingual and buccal sides for an inlay restoration. The adjacent teeth were veneered with crowns made of gold and zirconia, and an artificial tooth (resin) was utilized as the control group. The inlay cavity and adjacent teeth (Gold, Zirconia, and resin) were scanned 10 times using Chairside Economical Restoration of Esthetic Ceramics (CEREC) Primescan (PS), Omnicam (OC), and Bluecam (BC). A reference scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3-shape E3). Scanning was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, including powder application for the BC group. Standard tesselation language files were analyzed using a three-dimensional analysis software program. Experimental data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey's post-hoc comparison test.

RESULTS

The restorative materials of the adjacent teeth significantly affected the accuracy of the intraoral digital impressions (p < .05). The zirconia group exhibited the highest trueness deviation, followed by the resin and gold groups, with each demonstrating a statistically significant difference (p < .05). The resin group demonstrated the highest maximum positive deviation and deviation in precision. Gold exhibited the lowest average deviation value for trueness compared with those of the other adjacent restorative materials. Intraoral scanner type significantly influenced the trueness and precision of the scan data (p < .05). The average deviation of trueness according to the intraoral scanner type increased in the following order: BC > PS > OC. The average deviation in precision increased in the following order: PS>OC>BC (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

The restorative materials of the adjacent tooth and the type of intraoral scanner affect the accuracy of the intraoral digital impression. The trueness of the digital images of the BC group, obtained by spraying the powder, was comparable to that of the PS group. Among the adjacent restorative materials, zirconia exhibited the lowest trueness. In contrast, PS demonstrated the highest precision among the intraoral scanners, while resin displayed the lowest precision among the adjacent restorative materials.

Effect of different surface locking patterns on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The effect of different surface locking patterns on the trueness of a digital implant scan of a completely edentulous arch remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether locking surfaces with different patterns affected the trueness of complete arch implant digital scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary cast with 4 implants (2 anterior implants parallel and 2 posterior implants tilted at 17 degrees) was fabricated. Four implant-level scan bodies were fixed onto the implants, and the cast was scanned with a desktop scanner to create the reference file. Four groups (L0, L1, L2, and L3) were formed, each with a distinct locking surface configuration, and all scans were made using the same intraoral scanner. L0 kept all 4 implant-level scan bodies during scanning. L1 involved removing the right first premolar (RPM) scan body, scanning the other 3 implant scan bodies, then reattaching the RPM's scan body, and continuing scanning. In L2, the RPM and right lateral incisor (RIC) scan bodies were removed, followed by scanning the left implants to create a locking surface, and scanning the right implants. In L3, only the left posterior molar's (LPM) scan body was retained and scanned; then a locking surface was generated, and then the remaining implants were scanned. A metrology software program (Geomagic Control X) was used for comparison. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis, the 1-way ANOVA, the Welch ANOVA, the Friedman test, the repeated-measures ANOVA, the Bonferroni post hoc test, and the Games-Howell post hoc test (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant 3D surface deviations were observed in the coronal bevel (CB) region and in the entire scan bodies when assessing trueness in the L0, L1, L2, and L3 groups (P<.001). L2 exhibited the highest discrepancies in 3D surface deviation for CB (0.030 ±0.002 mm) and implant scan bodies (0.357 ±0.052 mm) and distance deviation, while the highest mean angular deviation values were found in L0 (0.924 ±0.131 degrees).

CONCLUSIONS

Locking half of the arch showed the highest trueness discrepancies when performing digital scans for complete arch implant-supported prostheses.

The impact of mandibular partial edentulous distal extension on virtual occlusal record accuracy when using two different intraoral scanners: An in vitro analysis

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study was formulated to clarify how mandibular partial edentulous distal extension involving three missing teeth affects the virtual occlusal record (VOR) accuracy, in terms of both trueness and precision, when using two different intraoral scanners (IOSs) - the Primescan (PS) and Trios 4 (TR) scanners.

METHODS

A typodont model missing the left mandibular second premolar, first molar, and second molar as well as the right mandibular first molar was mounted on a semi-adjustable articulator. Four implants were placed at the sites of the missing mandibular teeth. Six pairs of stainless steel markers (diameter: 0.5 mm) were affixed to the maxillary and mandibular casts in the buccal gingiva adjacent to the implants and on the facial surfaces of teeth as reference positions for measurements. The model was digitized with an inEox X5 laboratory scanner to create a reference dataset. Intraoral scans were performed with the PS and TR scanners, with each scan duplicated 10 times to generate 20 paired IOS files. Automatic VOR generation followed the bilateral buccal scan protocol, divided into PS and TR groups (n = 10). Six subgroups of linear distances between interarch markers were assessed with Geomagic Control software, comparing deviations from the reference scan. Data normality was confirmed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Trueness was evaluated with two-way ANOVAs and pairwise comparisons performed with Tukey's test, whereas precision was assessed with the Levene test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The mean linear deviation (Δd) and standard deviation (SD) of VOR were both significantly affected by marker position (P < 0.001), and a significant position × scanner interaction was detected (P < 0.001). Negative mean deviations were observed for the distally extended edentulous areas in both groups. PS scans exhibited trueness that was significantly better than that for TR scans in the D16-46, D13-43, D23-33, and D27-37 subgroups (P < 0.05), whereas there were no significant differences in the D25-35 or D26-36 subgroups. PS scanning was associated with significantly better precision than TR scanning (P < 0.001), and worse precision was observed at D27-37 for both tested IOSs.

CONCLUSIONS

Mandibular partial edentulous distal extension can significantly affect VOR accuracy. The type of IOS could also affect VOR accuracy depending on the area being scanned, with better overall performance observed for the Primescan device as compared to the Trios 4 scanner. Both of these IOSs tended to underestimate VOR occlusal dimensions in mandibular distally extended edentulous areas.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Mandibular distal edentulous areas can contribute to occlusal dimensions that are underestimated in digital workflows, which may result in infraocclusal discrepancies that arise when performing restorations. IOSs and VOR scanning protocols should thus be carefully considered in order to minimize these risks.

In vitro comparison of accuracy between conventional and digital impression using elastomeric materials and two intra-oral scanning devices

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch conventional implant impressions using two different materials (A-silicone and polyether) to full-arch digital implant impressions produced from two intraoral scanning devices.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A master model was fabricated representing an edentulous mandible with four implants with internal connection placed at the sites of canines and first molars. The anterior implants were parallel to the residual ridge, while the two posterior implants had an angulation of 15° to the distal and 15° to the lingual respectively. The conventional technique was performed with open-tray of non-splinted impression copings. Two different impression materials were used, A-silicone and polyether at monophase medium body consistencies. The digital impressions were obtained with the use of two different intraoral scanners, after the connection of scan bodies. A total of 10 impressions were produced for each of the four experimental groups. The conventional models as well as the master model were digitized using a high-resolution laboratory scanner. The STL files of the models and of the intraoral impressions were imported in a powerful superimposition software, for the conduction of measurements in pairs of files. The software calculated the 3D deviations, as well as the linear and angular displacements among scan bodies at the digital files. For "trueness" measurements every STL file of each experimental group was superimposed to the digital master model, while for "precision" measurements all STL files of each experimental group were superimposed to each other.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of full arch mandibular implant impressions was influenced both by the impression technique used (conventional vs. digital) and the impression material used (A-silicone vs. polyether) or the intraoral scanner used (Trios vs. Heron). In terms of "trueness," A-silicone showed the highest impression accuracy with the lowest deviation values, followed by polyether and Trios, but the differences between the three groups were in the majority not statistically significant. Heron showed statistically lower accuracy results in all measurements compared to the other groups. In terms of "precision", conventional impressions with the use of A-Silicone or polyether were statistically significantly superior to digital impressions with either scanner. A-Silicone and polyether showed no statistically significant difference between them.

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.

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.

Effect of Different Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Bite Registration in Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Arches

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to use in vitro models to examine the bite registration accuracy of four different intraoral scanners (IOS) for edentulous maxillary and mandibular arches. The objective was to assess the trueness and precision of the IOS and determine if there were significant differences between them.

METHODS

An Asiga Max UV 3D printer was used to print maxillary and mandibular edentulous models based on the shape of Frasaco models (artificial dental arch models). Four dental implants were placed symmetrically in both models using Straumann BLT RC implants. Digital impressions were taken with Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4, and Medit i500 intraoral scanners (n = 10 for each IOS). Digital bite registrations were made, and scanning data was exported in STL format. The accuracy of the interarch distance (the distance between the metrological spheres attached to the mandibular and maxillary models) was estimated for each IOS.

RESULTS

The results showed significant differences in trueness and precision between different IOS (p <.05), except Medit i500 and Trios 3 (p >.05). Primescan provided the most accurate results, followed by Medit i500, Trios 3, and Trios 4, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

within the limitations of this study, the IOS type affects the accuracy of interocclusal bite registration in in vitro design. Only Primescan achieved clinically acceptable accuracy for the interocclusal recording of edentulous arches.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The comparison of the accuracy of bite registration between different intraoral scanners will help increase the efficiency of the clinical application of digitalized interarch registration.

Scan accuracy and time efficiency of different implant-supported fixed partial denture situations depending on the intraoral scanner and scanned area: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The type of intraoral scanner (IOS), region of the implant, and extent of the scanned area have been reported to affect scan accuracy. However, knowledge of the accuracy of IOSs is scarce when digitizing different partially edentulous situations either with complete or partial arch scans.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the scan accuracy and time efficiency of complete and partial arch scans of different partially edentulous situations with 2 implants and 2 different IOSs.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three maxillary models with implant spaces at the lateral incisor sites (anterior 4-unit), right first premolar and right first molar sites (posterior 3-unit), or right canine and right first molar sites (posterior 4-unit) were fabricated. After placing implants (Straumann S RN) and scan bodies (CARES Mono Scanbody), models were digitized by using an optical scanner (ATOS Capsule 200MV120) to generate reference standard tessellation language (STL) files. Complete or partial arch scans (test scans) of each model were then performed by using 2 IOSs (Primescan [PS] and TRIOS 3 [T3]) (n=14). The duration of the scans and the time needed to postprocess the STL file until the design could be started were also recorded. A metrology-grade analysis software program (GOM Inspect 2018) was used to superimpose test scan STLs over the reference STL to calculate 3D distance, interimplant distance, and angular (mesiodistal and buccopalatal) deviations. Nonparametric 2-way analysis of variance followed by Mann-Whitney tests with Holm correction were used for trueness, precision, and time efficiency analyses (α=.05).

RESULTS

The interaction between IOSs and scanned area only affected the precision of the scans when angular deviation data were considered (P≤.002). Trueness of the scans was affected by IOSs when 3D distance, interimplant distance, and mesiodistal angular deviations were considered. The scanned area affected only 3D distance deviations (P≤.006). IOSs and scanned area significantly affected the precision of scans when 3D distance, interimplant distance, and mesiodistal angular deviations were considered, while only IOSs significantly affected buccopalatal angular deviations (P≤.040). Scans from PS had higher accuracy when 3D distance deviations were considered for the anterior 4-unit and posterior 3-unit models (P≤.030), when interimplant distance deviations were considered for complete arch scans of the posterior 3-unit model (P≤.048), and when mesiodistal angular deviations were considered in the posterior 3-unit model (P≤.050). Partial arch scans had higher accuracy when 3D distance deviations of the posterior 3-unit model were considered (P≤.002). PS had higher time efficiency regardless of the model and scanned area (P≤.010), while partial arch scans had higher time efficiency when scanning the posterior 3-unit and posterior 4-unit models with PS and the posterior 3-unit model with T3 (P≤.050).

CONCLUSIONS

Partial arch scans with PS had similar or better accuracy and time efficiency than other tested scanned area-scanner pairs in tested partial edentulism situations.

Biocompatibility of Subperiosteal Dental Implants: Changes in the Expression of Osteogenesis-Related Genes in Osteoblasts Exposed to Differently Treated Titanium Surfaces

The use of endosseous dental implants may become unfeasible in the presence of significant maxillary bone atrophy; thus, surgical techniques have been proposed to promote bone regeneration in such cases. However, such techniques are complex and may expose the patient to complications. Subperiosteal implants, being placed between the periosteum and the residual alveolar bone, are largely independent of bone thickness. Such devices had been abandoned due to the complexity of positioning and adaptation to the recipient bone site, but are nowadays witnessing an era of revival following the introduction of new acquisition procedures, new materials, and innovative manufacturing methods. We have analyzed the changes induced in gene and protein expression in C-12720 human osteoblasts by differently surface-modified TiO2 materials to verify their ability to promote bone formation. The TiO2 materials tested were (i) raw machined, (ii) electropolished with acid mixture, (iii) sand-blasted + acid-etched, (iv) AlTiColorTM surface, and (v) anodized. All five surfaces efficiently stimulated the expression of markers of osteoblastic differentiation, adhesion, and osteogenesis, such as RUNX2, osteocalcin, osterix, N-cadherin, β-catenin, and osteoprotegerin, while cell viability/proliferation was unaffected. Collectively, our observations document that presently available TiO2 materials are well suited for the manufacturing of modern subperiosteal implants.

Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best-fit method was then applied in the computer-aided design (CAD) software to compute the three-dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross-arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.

Intaglio Surface Adaptation of Removable Partial Denture Framework Fabricated by Various Data Acquisition Techniques and Fabrication Approaches

OBJECTIVES

 The aim of this study was to compare intaglio surface adaptation of the removable partial denture framework among various data acquisition techniques and fabrication approaches using three-dimensional comparison by metrology software.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 The partial edentulous typodont model with five digital superimposition landmarks was duplicated and scanned for the digital reference model. Three approaches were the conventional lost-wax (group I; LWT, n = 5), intraoral digital impressions combined with PolyJet printing and lost-wax (group II; IP-LWT, n = 5), and extraoral digital impressions combined with PolyJet printing and lost-wax (group III; EP-LWT, n = 5). Each framework was scanned and superimposed with the reference model. The misfits at 53 locations were measured.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

 Data were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference for pairwise comparisons (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

 Significant differences were found between three approaches at the reciprocal arm, terminal part of the retentive arm, rest, and major connector (p < 0.05). In the LWT group, the reciprocal arm and palatal vault region of major connector had the lowest misfits, but the highest misfit was found in the midline region (p < 0.001). In the IP-LWT group revealed the most excessive contact at the terminal part of the retentive arm (-0.111 ± 0.038 mm, p = 0.031), with the highest misfit at the rest area (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

 A difference in adaptation was found in several removable partial denture framework components among three approaches. The LWT group had a better adaptation than other groups. Nevertheless, a clinically acceptable adaptation was seen in all three approaches.

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.

Accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two intraoral scanners

OBJECTIVES

Limited studies are available on the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch implant and tooth models. This study aimed to assess the accuracy of maxillary full-arch digital impressions of tooth and implant models made by two IOSs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This in vitro, experimental study was conducted on two maxillary dentiform models: one with six prepared natural teeth and the other with six implants at the site of canine, first premolar, and first molar teeth, bilaterally. A highly accurate industrial scanner was used for actual measurements on the models that served as the reference scan. TS (Trios3) and CO (CEREC Omnicam) IOSs were then used to scan each model 10 times according to the manufacturer's instructions. All scans were saved in STL format. The GOM Inspect software was used according to the best-fit algorithm to compare the accuracy of measurements in the groups with the reference scan. The trueness and precision were calculated. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS by one-way analysis of variance and t-test (α = .05).

RESULTS

TS showed a significantly higher trueness than CO for both tooth and implant models (p < .05). TS also revealed significantly higher precision than CO for the tooth model; however, the difference in precision for the implant model was not significant between the two IOSs (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

TS showed higher accuracy than CO in both tooth and implant models.

Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of intraoral scanning coverage (IOSC) on digital implant impression accuracy in various partially edentulous situations and predict the optimal IOSC.

METHODS

Five types of resin models were fabricated, each simulating single or multiple tooth loss scenarios with inserted implants and scan bodies. IOSC was subgrouped to cover two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve teeth, as well as full arch. Each group underwent ten scans. A desktop scanner served as the reference. Accuracy was evaluated by measuring the Root mean square error (RMSE) values of scan bodies. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to predict the optimal IOSC with different edentulous situations. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.

RESULTS

For single-tooth-missing situations, in anterior sites, significantly better accuracy was observed in groups with IOSC ranging from four teeth to full arch (p < 0.05). In premolar sites, IOSC spanning four to six teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05), while in molar sites, groups with IOSC encompassing two to eight teeth exhibited better accuracy (p < 0.05). For multiple-teeth-missing situations, IOSC covering four, six, and eight teeth, as well as full arch showed better accuracy in anterior gaps (p < 0.05). In posterior gaps, IOSC of two, four, six or eight teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05). The CNN predicted distinct optimal IOSC for different edentulous scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant impression accuracy can be significantly impacted by IOSC in different partially edentulous situations. The selection of IOSC should be customized to the specific dentition defect condition.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The number of teeth scanned can significantly affect digital implant impression accuracy. For missing single or four anterior teeth, scan at least four or six neighboring teeth is acceptable. In lateral cases, two neighboring teeth may suffice, but extending over ten teeth, including contralateral side, might deteriorate the scan.

Accuracy of dental implants positioning in computer-assisted surgeries: In vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to presents an experimental method for surgical guide confection using an intraoral scanner to obtain a 3D model of the patient's complete denture and compare its accuracy with the conventional methodology using computed tomography.

STUDY DESIGN

This prospective in-vitro study used 30 polyurethane pre-manufactured mandibles which were divided into two groups, conventional technique (group I) and a new method using intraoral scanner (group II), establishing the virtually planned position of the dental implants as a control group, considered as the gold standard for postoperative comparison.

RESULTS

The difference between these methods is close to zero and not statistically significant (p > 0.05), being heigh deviation (Xh) with p:0.130 and angulation difference of dental implants between the groups (Ang) with p:0.396.

CONCLUSION

The acquisition of stereolithography image of the prosthesis using an intraoral scanner has a clinically acceptable accuracy, being in agreement with the conventional method.

Effect of different intraoral scanning strategies on the marginal and internal fit of CAD-CAM inlay restorations: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Whether the scanning strategy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) affects the accuracy of the digital recording for an indirect ceramic inlay restoration is unclear. Furthermore, which strategy would be optimal and most effective is uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the impact of 3 different scanning strategies using the Carestream CS 3700 IOS on the marginal and internal fit of a mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) ceramic inlay restoration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A typodont master model (ANA-4 VCER; Frasaco) was used with a standardized preprepared MOD inlay maxillary first molar typodont tooth (ANA-4 ZP16 CER99-008; Frasaco) (N=30). These inlay preparations were scanned with the CS 3700 IOS using 3 different scanning strategies: linear, wave, and S-figure scanning strategies. Each scan strategy group was scanned 10 times for all groups to obtain 30 standard tessellation language (STL) files. Thirty restorations were milled from lithium disilicate CAD blocks (IPS e.max; Ivoclar AG) and cemented into their typodont-prepared inlay cavities. A single examiner used a stereomicroscope to measure the marginal and internal gaps at the predetermined points. A 1-way ANOVA was used for the statistical analysis, followed by the Tukey post hoc test with Bonferroni adjustment. All tests were 2-tailed (α=.05).

RESULTS

All scanning strategy groups demonstrated statistically significant differences for the marginal and internal fit of the inlay restorations (P<.001). Overall, the linear scanning strategy showed the lowest mean marginal and internal gap values (29.2 ±3.6 µm and 39.0 ±6.4 µm), followed by the wave scanning strategy, which had comparable mean marginal and internal gap values: 49.1 ±3.6 µm and 48.2 ±6.0 µm, respectively. The S-figure scan strategy had the highest mean marginal and internal gap values: 50.2 ±12.6 µm and 71.3 ±7.7 µm, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Inlay restorations scanned by the linear scan strategy had the best marginal and internal fit when scanned with the CS 3700 IOS.

Evaluation of effects of brackets and orthodontic wires on intraoral scans: A prospective in-vivo study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate any distortion produced by multibracket fixed orthodontic appliances on digital models obtained from intraoral scans (IOS), considering the presence of both brackets only and brackets/archwire combination.

SETTING/SAMPLE

The IOS data of the arches of 20 patients (12 females and 8 males; mean age = 15.55 ± 2.84 years) were acquired using the CS3600 intraoral scanner (Carestream Dental, Atlanta, USA), without any appliances (model A), with vestibular brackets alone (model B) and then with brackets and orthodontic archwire fitted (model C).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data were acquired between the months of January and October 2021 at the moment of indirect bonding phase. On each model, five intra-arch linear measurements were obtained (inter-canine, inter-premolar 1 and 2, inter-molar and arch depth), and after digital matching between model A and B (match 1) and A and C (match 2), the linear discrepancies were evaluated at 20 points (10 occlusal and 10 gingivolingual) previous identified on the reference model A. All measurements were performed using Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Morrisville, USA), and any dimensional variations and distortions were evaluated by the linear regression analysis and two-sample t-test (P ≤ .05).

RESULTS

The results show an almost perfect correlation between both models B and C and the reference model A, both as regards the intra-arch linear measurements and the linear discrepancies found at the 20 identified points.

CONCLUSIONS

Multibracket fixed orthodontic appliances do not produce any relevant distortions in digital models obtained via intraoral scanning. Therefore, the removal of archwire is not mandatory before IOS.

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 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.

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 of merging scans of definitive fixed prosthodontic impressions to obtain single, accurate digitized master casts

PURPOSE

Many elastomeric impressions sent to commercial laboratory dental technicians may include marginal defects. To fabricate accurate restorations, digital technology may be used to merge digital files of defective impressions into a single standard tessellation language (STL) file free of errors. This would save clinicians and patients time and may improve clinical care. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital master casts reconstructed from merged STL files of defective impressions with the file of the original defect-free preparations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Ivorine teeth on a dentoform were prepared to receive a posterior fixed dental prosthesis (FDP) with complete coverage preparations. An impression was made in a stock tray using polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) impression material and an extraoral scanner (E3, 3Shape, Denmark) was used to digitize the impression; this was the reference cast. Wax was used to create defects on the buccal and lingual margins of the preparations. Fifteen PVS impressions were made of the FDP preparations with defects in the mesial and distal margins; another set of 15 PVS impressions was made of FDP preparations with defects in the buccal and palatal margins for a total of 30 impressions. All impressions were digitized using the same extraoral scanner (E3, 3Shape, Denmark). Corresponding STL files were paired and merged, and a master cast was created by eliminating the defects using the scanned data. This master cast was compared to the reference cast using reverse engineering software (Geomagic, Morrisville, NC, USA). The results were expressed as average errors and standard deviations in the master casts relative to the reference cast. To account for the presence of positive and negative values in the data set, in terms of errors, the root mean square (RMS) value was calculated for each sample.

RESULTS

The mean average error in the sample was -0.4 μm. The average upper limit of 95% confidence interval was +36.5 μm, while the average lower limit of 95% confidence interval was -37.3 μm. The mean RMS of the errors found was 18.9 μm.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicated that merging digitized definitive impressions to correct marginal defects resulted in master casts with a high level of accuracy relative to the reference cast.

Trueness and precision of complete arch dentate digital models produced by intraoral and desktop scanners: An ex-vivo study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to compare the trueness and precision of five intraoral scanners (Emerald S, iTero Element 5D, Medit i700, Primescan, and Trios 4) and two indirect digitization techniques for both teeth and soft tissues on fresh mandibular and maxillary cadaver jaws.

METHODS

The maxilla and mandible of a fully dentate cadaver were scanned by the ATOS industrial scanner to create a master model. Then, the specimens were scanned eight times by each intraoral scanner (IOS). In addition, 8 polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions were made and digitized with a Medit T710 desktop scanner. Stone models were then poured and again scanned with the desktop scanner. All IOS, PVS, and stone models were compared to the master model to calculate the mean absolute surface deviation for mandibular teeth, maxillary teeth, and palate.

RESULTS

For mandibular teeth, the PVS trueness was only significantly better than the Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.05). In maxillary teeth, the PVS trueness was significantly better than all IOSs (p < 0.05-0.001); the stone trueness was significantly better than Emerald S (p < 0.01), Medit i700 (p < 0.001) and Primescan (p < 0.01). In the palate, PVS and stone trueness were significantly lower than the iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < p < 0.01). Stone trueness was significantly lower than the Medit i700 (p < 0.05). The precision in the palate was significantly lower for PVS and stone than for Emerald S (p < 0.01, p < 0.05), iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01, p < 0.01), Primescan (p < 0.001, p < 0.001), and Trios 4 (p < 0.001, p < 0.01). Significant differences in trueness between the IOSs were observed only in the mandibular teeth. The Medit i700 performed worse than Emerald S (p < 0.01) and iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01). For mandibular teeth, the Medit i700 was significantly more precise than Primescan (p < 0.01) and the Emerald S (p < 0.05). The Trios 4 was significantly less precise than Emerald S (p < 0.05). The precision of Medit i700 was significantly worse than iTero Element 5D (p < 0.01) for maxillary teeth, as well as the Primescan (p < 0.01) and Trios 4 (p < 0.05) for the palate.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, indirectly digitized models from PVS impressions had higher trueness than IOS for maxillary teeth; precision between the two methods was similar. IOS was more accurate for palatal tissues. The differences in trueness and precision for mandibular teeth between the various techniques were negligible.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

All investigated IOSs and indirect digitization could be used for complete arch scanning in mandibular and maxillary dentate arches. However, direct optical digitization is preferable for the palate due to the low accuracy of physical impression techniques for soft tissues.

Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS) for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations with and without scanbodies splinting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two maxillary models were designed and fabricated to receive an all-on-four implant retained. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30 and Group 2; 45). Each group was then divided into three subgroups according to the type of IOS used: Subgroup C; Primescan, subgroup T; Trios4, and subgroup M; Medit i600. Then each subgroup was divided into two divisions according to scanning technique; division S: splinted and division N: nonsplinted. Ten scans were made by each scanner for every division. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic controlX analysis software.

RESULTS

Angulation had no significant effect on both the trueness (p = 0.854) and precision (p = 0.347). Splinting had a significant effect on trueness and precision (p < 0.001). Scanner type had a significant effect on trueness (p < 0.001) and precision (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between trueness of Trios 4 (112.15 ± 12.85) and Primescan (106.75 ± 22.58). However, there was a significant difference when compared to trueness of Medit i600 (158.50 ± 27.65). For the precision results Cerec Primescan showed the highest precision (95.45 ± 33.21). There was a significant difference between the three scanners, precision of Trios4 (109.72 ± 19.24) and Medit i600 (121.21 ± 17.26).

CONCLUSION

Cerec Primescan has higher trueness and precision than Trios 4 and Medit i600 in full arch implants scanning. Splinting the scanbodies improve the accuracy of full arch implants scanning.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Cerec Primescan and 3Shape Trios 4 can be used for scanning of All-on-four implant supported prosthesis when scanbodies are splinted using a modular chain device.

Investigation of the effects of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression using two intraoral scanners: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression in two intraoral scanners of Trios (3shape) and CEREC (Omnicam).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four acrylic models each including six implants at sites 11, 12, 15, 17, 23, and 27 were used, including large with parallel implants, large with angled implants, small with parallel implants, and small with angled implants. After tightening the scan bodies, distance measurements were done using a coordinate measuring machine. Then, each model was scanned 10 times using each scanner. Trueness and precision measurements were finally computed.

RESULTS

The trueness values ranged from 20 to 260 μm in CEREC Omnicam, and from 40 to 1030 μm in Trios. The precision values ranged from 30 to 190 μm in CEREC Omnicam, while from 50 to 770 μm in Trios. The multivariate test analysis indicated that the measured distances via two scanners and different models show different behaviors. Pairwise interactions between these three variables were significant (p < .05). Pairwise interactions between these variables were also significant. (p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Arch width could affect the accuracy of digital impression; by rotating toward the second quadrant and end points of the scan, errors have increased. However, the angulation of the implants had no effect on the accuracy of digital impression. The CEREC Omnicam scanner showed higher accuracy (trueness and precision) compared to the Trios (3shape) one.

Three-Dimensional Scanning Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners for Dental Implant Scan Bodies-An Original Study

Background and Objectives: With the increased trend towards digitalization in dentistry, intraoral scanning has, to a certain extent, replaced conventional impressions in particular clinical settings. Trueness and precision are essential traits for optical impressions but have so far been incompletely explored. Materials and Methods: We performed a study to evaluate the differences in the three-dimensional spatial orientations of implant analogs on a stone cast when using an intraoral scanner compared to a dental laboratory scanner. We assessed the deviation of the intraoral scans compared to the laboratory scan for three standardized implant measurement plans and compared these results with control scans of the neighboring natural teeth. Results: We found no statistically significant correlation between the measurements at the scan body level and the landmarks chosen as controls on the neighboring natural teeth (p = 0.198). The values for the implant scans presented wider variation compared to the control scans. The difference between the implant and the control planes ranged from -0.018 mm to +0.267 mm, with a median of -0.011 mm (IQR: -0.001-0.031 mm). While most values fell within a clinically acceptable margin of error of 0.05 mm, 12.5% of the measurements fell outside of this acceptable range and could potentially affect the quality of the resulting prosthetic work. Conclusions: For single-unit implant-supported restorations, intraoral scanning might have enough accuracy. However, the differences that result when scanning with an intraoral scanner may affect the quality of prosthetic work on multiple implants, especially if they are screw-retained. Based on our results, we propose different adaptations of the prosthetic protocol to minimize the potential effect of errors that may occur during the digital workflow.

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.

Trueness and Precision of Eight Intraoral Scanners with Different Finishing Line Designs: A Comparative In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE

 This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy in terms of trueness and precision of eight intraoral scanners (IOS) and the effect of different finishing line designs on the IOS's accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Three printed models of the maxillary arch with maxillary right first molar virtually prepared with chamfer, shoulder, and vertical preparation designs were used as master models in this study. Each model was scanned 30 times with each IOS: Medit i700, Planscan Emerald S, CEREC Primescan, TRIOS 3, CS3600, MEDIT i500, Heron 3Disc, and Cerec Omnicam. The trueness was measured by superimposition of the scanned dataset made with IOS and the scanned dataset made with a lab scanner (In Lab Medit T710) that was used as a reference and the deviation was measured and expressed as a color-coded map by the metrology program (Medit compare, version 2.3.5.892), while precision was measured by the superimposition of the scans of each IOS on each other.The data were analyzed statistically using repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) test, one-way ANOVA test, and Bonferroni test at significance level of 0.05.

RESULTS

 The tested IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision. Medit i700 and CEREC Primescan recorded the highest precision with no significant difference between them, while Medit i700 recorded the highest trueness as compared to other IOS. Each IOS showed significant differences in trueness and precision with the three finishing line designs except CEREC Primescan and Heron 3 disc that showed no significant difference in trueness with the three finishing line designs and CS3600 that showed no significant difference in precision with the three finishing line designs.

CONCLUSION

 A significant difference in accuracy was found among the tested IOS and the type of finishing line design had a significant effect on IOS's accuracy.

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 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported prostheses are technique-sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer an alternative to conventional impression making.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete arch implant scans and to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks fabricated with SPG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Laboratory scanning of gypsum casts, SPG, and IOS were performed for all participants. The data regarding the abutment platform were superimposed to calculate the 3D deviation of SPG and IOS compared with that of laboratory scanning as an evaluation of accuracy. The effect of implant position and number on accuracy was analyzed. The more accurate technique between SPG and IOS was used to fabricate the titanium frameworks, as was laboratory scanning. The passive fit of the frameworks was assessed by clinical examination, the Sheffield test, and panoramic radiography.

RESULTS

Seventeen participants (21 arches, 120 implants) were included. The accuracy of SPG ranged from 2.70 μm to 92.80 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 17.00 (11.68, 22.50) μm, which was significantly more accurate than that of IOS, ranging from 21.30 μm to 815.60 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 48.95 (34.78, 75.88) μm. No significant correlation was found between position or number of implants and 3D deviation in the SPG group. A weak positive correlation was found between implant number and 3D deviation in the IOS group. SPG and laboratory scanning were used to fabricate titanium frameworks. The passive fit between the frameworks and abutment platforms was confirmed.

CONCLUSIONS

SPG, which was not affected by position or number of implants, was more accurate than IOS and comparable with laboratory scanning. The frameworks fabricated based on SPG and laboratory scanning were comparable in their passive fit. The SPG technique may be an alternative to laboratory scanning for complete arch implant scans.

Application of three-dimensional reconstruction technology in dentistry: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Three-dimensional(3D) reconstruction technology is a method of transforming real goals into mathematical models consistent with computer logic expressions and has been widely used in dentistry, but the lack of review and summary leads to confusion and misinterpretation of information. The purpose of this review is to provide the first comprehensive link and scientific analysis of 3D reconstruction technology and dentistry to bridge the information bias between these two disciplines.

METHODS

The IEEE Xplore and PubMed databases were used for rigorous searches based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, supplemented by Google Academic as a complementary tool to retrieve all literature up to February 2023. We conducted a narrative review focusing on the empirical findings of the application of 3D reconstruction technology to dentistry.

RESULTS

We classify the technologies applied to dentistry according to their principles and summarize the different characteristics of each category, as well as the different application scenarios determined by these characteristics of each technique. In addition, we indicate their development prospects and worthy research directions in the field of dentistry, from individual techniques to the overall discipline of 3D reconstruction technology, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers and clinicians should make different decisions on the choice of 3D reconstruction technology based on different objectives. The main trend in the future development of 3D reconstruction technology is the joint application of technology.

Clinical assessment of various imaging systems for dental plaque scoring after the use of 3 different toothpastes

Purpose

This study was conducted to compare dental plaque scores obtained through clinical examinations and various imaging techniques, as well as to assess the effectiveness of herbal and conventional toothpastes for plaque removal.

Material and Methods

Thirty volunteers were divided into 3 groups. Each group was given a different toothpaste (from 2 herbal toothpastes and a conventional toothpaste) with which to brush their teeth for 21 days. Both initially and after brushing, dental plaque samples were collected, and plaque on the buccal surfaces of anterior teeth was scored using several imaging systems after staining with a disclosing agent. Specifically, digital dental photography, intraoral digital scanning, and FluoreCam imaging were employed to capture intraoral images. The Turesky Modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index was used for clinical examination and image analysis. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction analyses and correlational assessments between clinical examination and imaging scores were conducted before and after toothpaste use. The Shapiro-Wilk test and Pearson correlations were utilized.

Results

The lowest mean value was observed in the clinical examination without staining, while the highest was obtained using the FluoreCam method. No significant change was found in the level of any microorganism assessed following toothpaste use (P<0.05), with the exception of a decrease in S. mutans levels after using conventional toothpaste (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Herbal toothpaste demonstrated plaque-removal effectiveness comparable to that of conventional toothpaste. The use of imaging methods for measuring plaque index has been suggested as a means to educate patients about plaque control and promote ongoing oral care.

Comparison of 3D accuracy of three different digital intraoral scanners in full-arch implant impressions

PURPOSE

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0°, 5°, 0°, 0°, 15°, and 0° in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured.

RESULTS

While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 µm, the values of 104 µm and 171 µm were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively (P = .001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners (P < .001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185°, the values of 0.499° and 1.250° were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group.

Diagnostic Applications of Intraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review

In addition to their recognized value for obtaining 3D digital dental models, intraoral scanners (IOSs) have recently been proven to be promising tools for oral health diagnostics. In this work, the most recent literature on IOSs was reviewed with a focus on their applications as detection systems of oral cavity pathologies. Those applications of IOSs falling in the general area of detection systems for oral health diagnostics (e.g., caries, dental wear, periodontal diseases, oral cancer) were included, while excluding those works mainly focused on 3D dental model reconstruction for implantology, orthodontics, or prosthodontics. Three major scientific databases, namely Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science, were searched and explored by three independent reviewers. The synthesis and analysis of the studies was carried out by considering the type and technical features of the IOS, the study objectives, and the specific diagnostic applications. From the synthesis of the twenty-five included studies, the main diagnostic fields where IOS technology applies were highlighted, ranging from the detection of tooth wear and caries to the diagnosis of plaques, periodontal defects, and other complications. This shows how additional diagnostic information can be obtained by combining the IOS technology with other radiographic techniques. Despite some promising results, the clinical evidence regarding the use of IOSs as oral health probes is still limited, and further efforts are needed to validate the diagnostic potential of IOSs over conventional tools.

Clinical aspects of digital three-dimensional intraoral scanning in orthodontics - A systematic review

Objective

This systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy, reproducibility, scanning time, patient comfort, and operator experience of various commercially available intraoral scanners (IOS) in orthodontics.

Methods

An elaborate and extensive search of literature in the PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central databases was performed using various relevant keywords.

Results

A total of 3256 articles were obtained from all the databases, 35 studies were included. The accuracy of IOS was controversial compared to that of conventional impression techniques. Digital scanning demonstrated satisfactory to excellent reproducibility, shorter scanning time, and improved patient comfort compared with conventional techniques.

Conclusion

IOS are time-efficient, comfortable for patients, and simple to use with a learning curve for the operator. These methods are sufficiently accurate for treatment planning and aligner fabrication in orthodontics.

Investigating the implant position reproducibility of optical impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner and 3D-printed models fabricated using an intraoral scanner

PURPOSE

This study aims to examine the effect of the size of the intraoral scanning area on implant position reproducibility and compare the implant position reproducibility of plaster models fabricated using the silicone impression technique, the digital model of an intraoral scanner, and three-dimensional (3D)-printed models fabricated using an intraoral scanner.

METHODS

Scanbodies were attached to an edentulous model with six implants (master model) and were scanned using a dental laboratory scanner to obtain basic data. The plaster model was fabricated using the open-tray method (IMPM; n = 5). The master model was then scanned in various implant areas using an intraoral scanner to obtain data (IOSM; n = 5); the scanning data of six scanbodies were used to fabricate the 3D-printed models (3DPM; n = 5) using a 3D printer. Scanbodies were attached to the implant analogs of the IMPM and 3DPM models and data were obtained using a dental laboratory scanner. The basic data and IMPM, IOSM, and 3DPM data were superimposed to calculate the concordance rate of the scanbodies.

RESULTS

The concordance rate of intraoral scanning decreased as the number of scanbodies increased. Significant differences were observed between the IMPM and IOSM data, and between the IOSM and 3DPM data; however, the IMPM and 3DPM data did not differ significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The implant position reproducibility of the intraoral scanner decreased with an increase in the scanning area. However, ISOM and 3DPM may provide higher implant position reproducibility than plaster models fabricated using IMPM.

A Novel Self-Assessment Method for Training Access Cavity on 3D Printed Endodontic Models

BACKGROUND

New technologies can facilitate the transition from pre-clinical to clinical settings. We investigate students' satisfaction with a novel learning method adopted in access cavity exercises.

METHODS

Students performed their access cavity on inexpensive, in-house 3D printed teeth. Their performances were evaluated by scanning the prepared teeth with an intraoral scanner and visualized using a mesh processing software. Then, the same software was used to align the tooth prepared by the student and the teacher's one for self-assessment purposes. Students were asked to answer a questionnaire about their experiences with this new learning method.

RESULTS

From the teacher's perspective, this novel learning approach was easy, straightforward and affordable. Overall, student feedback was positive: 73% found that access cavity assessment by scanning was more useful compared to a visual inspection under magnification and 57% reported that they had a better understanding of errors and mishaps. On the other hand, students pointed out that the material used to print teeth was too soft.

CONCLUSION

The use of in-house 3D printed teeth in pre-clinical training is a simple way to overcome some of the drawbacks associated with extracted teeth, such as limited availability, variability, cross-infection control, and ethical constraints. The use of intraoral scanners and mesh processing software could improve student self-assessment.

Comparison of the learning curve of intraoral scanning with two different intraoral scanners based on scanning time

BACKGROUND

The appearance of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in dental offices was an important milestones for the digital innovations in dentistry. Knowing the learning curve for intraoral scanning is crucial, because it can serve as a guideline for clinicians before buying a new IOS. The aim of the present in vivo study was to determine the learning curve required by dental students for intraoral scanning with the 3Shape Trios 4 IOS and the CEREC Primescan IOS, based on scanning time.

METHODS

A total of 20 dental students with no previous experience in intraoral scanning participated in the present study. 10 students scanned with Trios 4® IOS (TRI) and 10 students took digital impressions with Primescan® IOS (CER). Every student created 15 digital impressions from patients. Prior to taking the impressions, theoretical and practical education was provided. The total scanning time included the upper and lower arches as well as bite registration, for which average values were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Stata package with a mixed-effects generalized least squares regression models.

RESULTS

The average total scanning times were the following: TRI - 205 s for the 1st impression, 133.6 s for the 15th, CER - 289.8 s for the 1st impression, 147 s for the 15th. The model-based estimate of the difference between the two in case of TRI was 57.5 s, and in CER was 144.2 s which is a highly significant improvement in both cases (P < 0.0001). The slope of the scanning time vs. learning phase curve gradually approached flatness, and maintained a plateau: TRI - from the 11th measurement and CER - from the 14th measurement onward.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the limitations of the present study, we found difference between the learning curve of scanner types which are operate various principle of imaging. In case of the TRI fewer digital impressions (11 repeating) were sufficient to reach the average scanning time of an experienced user than using CER (14 repeating).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The permission for this study was given by the University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number: 184/2022).

The impact of software updates on accuracy of intraoral scanners

BACKGROUND

Digital workflow is showing an increasing tendency in everyday dentistry. Accuracy is essential during digital dental workflows for all indication areas. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of software updates on the accuracy of intraoral scanner (IOS) devices.

METHODS

3Shape Trios 3 Pod with software versions 18.1.2. (TRI3_1) and 20.1.2. (TRI3_2); 3Shape Trios 4 Move, version 19.2.2. (TRI4_1); and 3Shape Trios 4 Pod, version 20.1.1. (TRI4_2) were used to take direct optical impressions from a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) full arch reference model with prepared teeth (FDI 11,14,17 for crowns and FDI 26 for onlay) and an edentulous region (between FDI 14 and 17). The scanners were used eight times; STL files were imported into Geomagic Control X for accuracy assessment by comparing them to a reference data set created by an industrial high-precision scanner (AICON SmartScan-3D C5). The average deviation of the surface points was calculated in three locations: across a full arch (Parameter 1), the region of a four-unit bridge (Parameter 2), and a single prepared abutment (Parameter 3).

RESULTS

In parameter 1 and 2, the newest model with the latest software (TRI4_2) reached the highest accuracy (31.06 ± 5.24 µm and 21.69 ± 7.50 µm). In parameter 3, an older generation scanner running legacy software produced the highest accuracy: TRI4_1, 11.75 ± 0.35 µm.

CONCLUSION

Appropriate software updates can significantly increase the trueness and precision of intraoral scanner devices. With updated software, the older generation can match the accuracy level of latest equipment.

Predictability of intraoral scanner error for full-arch implant-supported rehabilitation

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to analyze the behaviors of three intraoral scanners (IOSs): evaluating the interdistance and axial inclination discrepancies in full-arch scans, predictable errors were searched.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six edentulous sample models with variable numbers of dental implants were used; reference data were obtained with a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM). Each IOS (i.e., Primescan, CS3600, and Trios3) performed 10 scans per model (180 total scans). The origin of each scan body was used as a reference point to measure interdistance lengths and axial inclinations. Precision and trueness of interdistance measurements and axial inclinations were evaluated to address error predictability. Bland-Altman analysis, followed by linear regression analysis and Friedman's test (plus Dunn's post hoc correction), was performed to evaluate the precision and trueness.

RESULTS

Regarding interdistance, Primescan showed the best precision (mean ± SD: 0.047 ± 0.020 mm), while Trios3 underestimated the reference value more than the others (p < 0.001) and had the worst performance (mean ± SD: -0.079 ± 0.048 mm). Concerning the inclination angle, Primescan and Trios3 tended to overestimate angle values, while CS3600 underestimated them. Primescan had fewer inclination angle outliers, but it tended to add 0.4-0.6° to the measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

IOSs showed predictable errors: they tended to overestimate or underestimate linear measurements and axial inclinations of scan bodies, one added 0.4-0.6° to the angle inclination values. In particular, they showed heteroscedasticity, a behavior probably related to the software or the device itself.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

IOSs showed predictable errors that could affect clinical success. When performing a scan or choosing a scanner, clinicians should clearly know their behaviors.

Wear of Titanium Implant Platforms with Different Abutment Connections and Abutment Materials: A Pilot Study

The most commonly used material in dental implants and their abutments is titanium. Zirconia is a more aesthetic alternative to titanium abutments; however, it is much harder. There are concerns that zirconia could damage the surface of the implant over time, especially in less stable connections. The aim was to evaluate the wear of implants with different platforms connected to titanium and zirconia abutments. A total of six implants were evaluated, two of each connection type: external hexagon, tri-channel, and conical connections (n = 2). Half of the implants were connected to zirconia abutments, and the other half to titanium abutments (n = 3). The implants were then cyclically loaded. The implant platforms were evaluated by digital superimposing micro CT files and calculating the area of the loss surface (wear). In all the implants, a statistically significant loss of the surface area (p = 0.028) was observed when comparing the area before and after cyclic loading. The average lost surface area was 0.38 mm² with titanium abutments and 0.41 mm² with zirconia abutments. The average lost surface area was 0.41 mm² with the external hexagon, 0.38 mm² with the tri-channel, and 0.40 mm² with the conical connection. In conclusion, the cyclic loads induced implant wear. However, neither the type of abutment (p = 0.700) nor the connection (p = 0.718) influenced the amount of surface area lost.

Influence of Operator Experience on Scanning Time and Accuracy with Two Different Intraoral Scanners - A Prospective Clinical Trial

Objective

Operator experience and scanner type may influence the time taken and obtained accuracy of intraoral scanning. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of operator experience on the scanning time and correlate the accuracy of the scans taken with two different intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, 3Shape and i500, Medit).

Methods

In this trial, a total of 20 subjects who required intraoral scanning for orthodontic treatment were included. Intraoral scanning was done with two different scanners, TRIOS 3 and i500. One operator each with high (group 1), medium (group 2) and low (group 3) levels of experience performed intra-oral scanning with two different intraoral scanners. A One-Way ANOVA test was performed to assess the intergroup difference in scanning time and Kendall's tau's correlation test to determine the correlation between the experience of the operator and accuracy among the three groups using the two scanners. Also Independent samples t-test were performed to assess the intragroup differences in scanning time with two different scanners.

Results

The scanning time was influenced by the type of intraoral scanner and operator experience (p<0.05). No significant correlation between operator experience and scanning accuracy in the three groups was noted (p>0.05). Statistically significant intragroup differences in scanning time between the two scanners were noted (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Less experienced operators took more time to scan a subject. Accuracy of scanning among three groups using two scanners was not influenced by the experience of the operator. Scanning with i500 IOS took more time than TRIOS.

Accuracy of four recent intraoral scanners with respect to two different ceramic surfaces

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the complete arch accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) on two different ceramic surfaces.

METHODS

Two maxillary master cast samples were prepared. The bases of both the master casts were made from zirconium oxide. The difference between the two casts was that the teeth of the [ZR] cast were produced from zirconium oxide and that of the [LD] cast were made of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic. Unlike the zirconia teeth of the [ZR] cast, the lithium disilicate teeth of the [LD] cast were glazed. The two master casts were digitized using a high-resolution scanner (Atos Compact Scan 5 M, GOM GmbH, Braunschweig, Germany) to obtain digital reference casts. Subsequently, each master cast was scanned 15 times using four IOSs. The IOSs were the Cerec Omnicam [OM], Primescan [PR], Trios 4 [TR4], and VivaScan [VS]. On surface comparison, the absolute mean deviation values were obtained for trueness and precision. For multiple comparisons, statistically significant differences were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis H test. The p-value was adjusted to control for the increased risk of type I error (p < 0.0083). To compare the two means, the t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were used (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Trueness values for [ZR] ranged from 24.6 (±6.3) µm for [PR] and 77.1 (±8.3) µm for [OM]. Trueness values for [LD] were between 28.3 (±6.3) µm for [PR] and 72.8 (±15.6) µm for [OM]. Precision values for [ZR] ranged from 17.6 (±3.7) µm for [PR] to 37.3 (±9.9) µm for [OM]. Precision values for [LD] ranged from 17.5 (±3.6) µm for [PR] to 41.8 (±8.7) µm for [OM]. Statistically significant differences were found among all the IOSs (p < 0.0083). The trueness values of the four IOSs did not differ significantly (p < 0.05) with respect to either the [ZR] or [LD] cast. The precision values of [OM] and [VS] differed significantly with respect to the scanned surface.

CONCLUSIONS

Complete arch scans achieved with the four IOSs showed significantly different trueness and precision results. [VS] and [OM] were more sensitive in terms of the scanned material.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The latest IOSs showed the required accuracy for complete arch digital impressions in-vitro investigations. These findings should be implemented under conditions relevant to complete arch deviations, such as the construction of occlusal splints, analysis of occlusal relationships, and long-span restorations. Clinicians should be aware that the clinically acceptable threshold varies depending on the purpose of the IOS.

Effect of intraoral scanner and fixed partial denture situation on the scan accuracy of multiple implants: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

Accuracy of intraoral implant scans may be affected by the region of the implant and the type of the intraoral scanner (IOSs). However, there is limited knowledge on the scan accuracy of multiple implants placed for an implant-supported fixed partial denture (FPD) in different partially edentulous situations when digitized by using different IOSs.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of IOS and FPD situation on the scan accuracy of two implants when partial-arch scans were performed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tissue level implants were placed in 3 maxillary models with implant spaces either at right first premolar and right first molar sites (Model 1, 3-unit FPD), at right canine and right first molar sites (Model 2, 4-unit FPD), or at lateral incisor sites (Model 3, 4-unit FPD). Reference standard tessellation language (STL) files of the models were generated by using an optical scanner (ATOS Capsule 200MV120). Two IOSs (CEREC Primescan [CP] and TRIOS 3 [TR]) were used to perform partial-arch scans (test-scans) of each model (n = 14), which were exported in STL format. A metrology-grade analysis software (GOM Inspect 2018) was used to superimpose test-scan STLs over the reference STL to calculate 3D distance, inter-implant distance, and angular (mesiodistal and buccopalatal) deviations. Trueness and precision analyses were performed by using bootstrap analysis of variance followed by Welch tests with Holm correction (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Trueness of the scans was affected by IOS and FPD situation when 3D distance deviations were considered, while inter-implant distance, mesiodistal angular, and buccopalatal angular deviations were only affected by the FPD situation (p < 0.001). Scan precision was affected by the interaction between the IOSs and the FPD situation when 3D distance and buccopalatal angular deviations were concerned, while IOSs and FPD situation were effective when all deviations were concerned (p≤ 0.001). When 3D distance deviations were considered, CP scans had higher accuracy TR scans in Models 1 and 3 (p ≤ 0.002), and the Model 1 scans had the highest accuracy (p < 0.001). When inter-implant distance deviations were considered, Model 1 scans had the highest accuracy with CP and higher accuracy than Model 2 when TR was used (p ≤ 0.030). When mesiodistal angular deviations were considered, Model 1 scans had the highest accuracy (p ≤ 0.040). When buccopalatal angular deviations were considered, Model 1 scans had the highest accuracy among models when CP was used (p ≤ 0.020).

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior 3-unit fixed partial denture implant scans, CP scans, and combination of these two factors had accuracy either similar to or better than their tested counterparts.

In Vitro Trueness and Precision of Intraoral Scanners in a Four-Implant Complete-Arch Model

(1) Background: New intraoral (IOS) and laboratory scanners appear in the market and their trueness and precision have not been compared. (2) Methods: Seven IOS and two laboratory scanners were used to scan a mandibular edentulous model with four parallel internal hexagon implant analogues and PEEK scan bodies. Digital models in Standard Tessellation Language (STL) were created. The master model with the scan bodies was scanned (×10) with a computerized numerical control 3D Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). The short (distances of adjacent scan posts) and long distances (distances of the scan posts with non-adjacent sites in the arch) among the centroids of the four analogues were calculated using CMM special software. Trueness (comparisons with the master model) and precision (intragroup comparisons) were statistically compared with ANOVA, chi-square and Tukey tests. (3) Results: Laboratory scanners had the best trueness and precision compared to all IOSs for long distances. Only iTero (Align Technologies Inc., Milpitas, CA, USA) had comparable trueness with one laboratory scanner in short and long distances. For short distances, CS3600 (Carestream Health, Inc., Rochester, NY, USA), Omnicam, Primescan (Sirona Dental Sys-tems GmbH, Bens-heim, Germany) and TRIOS 4 (3Shape A/S, Copen-hagen, Denmark) had similar trueness to one laboratory scanner. From those, only Omnicam and Primescan had similar precision as the same laboratory scanner. Most IOSs seem to work better for smaller distances and are less precise in cross-arch distances. (4) Conclusions: The laboratory scanners showed significantly higher trueness and precision than all IOSs tested for the long-distance group; for the short distance, some IOSs were not different in trueness and precision than the laboratory scanners.

Comparison of the dimensional and morphological accuracy of three-dimensional digital dental casts digitized using different methods

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital dental casts from plaster cast scanning (PCS), impression scanning (IPS), intraoral scanning (IOS), and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning (CCS) methods. The maxillary and mandibular dental casts of 15 patients who needed CBCT scans for oral examination or treatment were digitized via four methods. 12 linear distance measurements of all digital dental casts were selected and acquired with software and compared to those of the reference plaster cast to evaluate the dimensional accuracy. Three-dimensional deviation analysis of the IPS, IOS and CCS groups with respect to the reference PCS group was performed to evaluate the morphological accuracy. The discrepancy in linear distances between the digital dental casts and reference plaster casts was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The dimensional accuracies of the PCS (0.06 ± 0.12 mm) and IPS (0.03 ± 0.05 mm) casts were better than those of the IOS (0.37 ± 0.30 mm) and CCS (0.54 ± 0.40 mm) casts. The one-sample t test showed that there were statistically significant differences between the discrepancies in 8 of the linear distances for the PCS group and 9 of the linear distances for the IPS group between the digital dental casts and reference plaster casts, with an ideal error of 0.00 (p < 0.05). The sequence of morphological accuracy from good to poor was maxillary and mandibular IPS, mandibular IOS; maxillary IOS; and maxillary and mandibular CCS. The accuracy of the digital dental casts from the PCS and IPS methods was greater than that of IOS and CCS methods. Although accuracy of the digital dental cast from IOS was low, it satisfied the clinical requirements for fixed restorations in small units. The accuracy of the digital dental cast from CCS was poorest and could only be used for procedures with lower accuracy requirements.

Accuracy of Digital Impressions at Varying Implant Depths: An In Vitro Study

PURPOSE

Implants placed at variable depths may vary the amount of visible scannable surface of a scan body. Intraoral scanner technology uses advanced optical principles to record the surface of the scan body to accurately capture the implant position. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect implant placement depth has on the accuracy of digital implant impressions using an intraoral scanner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A partially edentulous gypsum master model was fabricated to allow the positioning of a single implant analog at different depths. Four groups were created based on the planned implant depths of 7, 6, 3, and 0 mm and corresponding visibility of the scan body at 2, 3, 6, and 9 mm. The model was digitized with a laboratory scanner for the reference scan and with an intraoral scanner to generate 15 test scans per group, with a total of 60 scans. The test scans were superimposed onto the reference scan using the best fit algorithm to analyze and measure the positional (dXYZ) and angular deviation (d⍬) of the scan body using three-dimensional metrology software. Statistical analysis was performed using a one-way ANOVA and pairwise comparison was done with a Tukey-Kramer HSD test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The one-way ANOVA of the groups for the dXYZ and dθ parameters was statistically significant (F_3,56 = 11.45, p < 0.001, F_3,56 = 24.04, p < 0.001). Group D (9 mm) showed the least positional deviation at 38.41 μm (95% CI 30.26; 46.56) and the least angular deviation of 0.17° (95% CI 0.12; 0.21). Group A (2 mm) showed the greatest positional deviation of 77.17 μm (95% CI 65.23; 89.11) and greatest angular deviation of 0.84° (95% CI 0.65; 1.03). The positional and angular deviation increased with increased implant depth.

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of digital impressions is influenced by the implant depth and the amount of visibility of the scan body. The trueness and precision are highest when the implant is placed at 0 mm depth with complete visibility of the scan body and decreases with subgingival implant placement.

Evaluating the accuracy of CAD/CAM optimized stones compared to conventional type IV stones

This study compared the accuracy (trueness and precision) of stone models fabricated using two brands of CAD/CAM optimized stones Cerec Stone (BC) and Elite Master (EM), and a conventional type IV stone Elite Rock Fast (ERF). 30 conventional Type IV and scannable stone complete-arch models were scanned with a blue LED extraoral scanner, and root mean square values were obtained. 6 abutments were used in complete-arch models. The digital models were compared with the master model to evaluate their trueness using model superimposition with Geomagic software. Precision was determined for each case by superimposing combinations of the 10 datasets in each group. The point cloud density of each model was calculated with MeshLab software. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney non-parametric tests were used for the statistical analysis. The trueness of the stone models was 96 μm for the BC, 88.2 μm for the EM, and 87.6 μm for the ERF. There were no significant differences between the tested dental stones (p = .768). However, the EM models (35.6 μm) were more precise than the BC (46.9 μm) and ERF (56.4 μm) models (p = .001, p < .001). EM models also showed the highest point cloud density. There were significant differences in point cloud density (p = .003). The EM models showed significant differences in precision but no significant differences in terms of trueness. Although EM was more precise and had the highest point cloud density, all models were within the clinically acceptable limit.

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.

In vitro scan accuracy and time efficiency in various implant-supported fixed partial denture situations

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy and time efficiency of different digital workflows in 3 implant-supported fixed partial denture situations.

METHODS

Three partially edentulous maxillary models with 2 implants (Model 1: implants at lateral incisor sites; Model 2: implants at right canine and first molar sites; Model 3: implants at right first premolar and first molar sites) were digitized (ATOS Capsule 200MV120, n=1) for reference scans. Test scans were performed for direct (Primescan (DDW-P) and Trios 3 (DDW-T)) and indirect (IDW) digital workflows (n=14). For IDW, stone casts (type IV) were obtained from vinylsiloxanether impressions and digitized (S600 Arti). The scan/impression and post processing times were recorded. Reference and test scans were superimposed (GOM Inspect) to calculate 3D point, inter-implant distance, and angular deviations. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for trueness and precision analyses (α=.05).

RESULTS

Tested workflows affected trueness (P≤.030) and precision (P<.001) of scans (3D point, inter-implant distance, and angular deviations) within models. DDW-P had the highest accuracy (3D point deviations) for models 1 and 3 (P≤.046). IDW had the lowest accuracy for model 2 (P<.01). DDW-P had the highest accuracy (inter-implant distance deviations) for model 3 (P≤.048). Direct digital workflow mostly led to lower angular deviations (P≤.040), and higher precision for models 2 (mesiodistal direction) and 3 (P<.001). The time for direct digital workflow was shorter (P<.001), DDW-P being more efficient than DDW-T (P=.008).

CONCLUSION

Direct digital workflow was more accurate and efficient than indirect digital workflow in tested partial edentulism situations with 2 implants.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested intraoral scanners can be recommended for accurate and efficient impressions of anterior and posterior 3- or 4-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures.