Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study

Intraoral scanners in implant prosthodontics. A narrative review

OBJECTIVES

To review the developments in intraoral scanner (IOS) technologies applied in implant prosthodontics, emphasizing their influence on the accuracy of digital impressions, occlusal registrations, and the fit of implant-supported restorations.

DATA

A collection of published articles related to implant prosthodontics, the accuracy of digital impressions, occlusal registration, and the fit of implant-supported fixed restorations.

SOURCES

Three search engines were selected: Medline/PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted.

STUDY SELECTION

A literature search screened relevant databases and journals for studies on IOS applications in digital implant prosthodontic workflows from Dec 2018 to Dec 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized control trials, clinical trials, case series, and in vitro research focused on the use of IOS in digital implant prosthodontics.

CONCLUSIONS

The increased utilization of digital dental technologies has led to significant integration of digital implant prosthodontic workflows into clinicians' clinical practice. Several variables affect the accuracy of digital impressions generated by IOS. Generally, the prevailing opinion in academic papers is that digital workflows are suitable for addressing short-span implant-supported restorations. However, when it comes to long-span defects, the accuracy of digital workflows is still a matter of debate. Digital bite registration is an integral part of the workflow. It depends mainly on the defect size and location, scan strategy, anatomical tooth variations, overbite and other factors. The overall fit of digitally prefabricated implant restorations comprises of proximal, occlusal contacts and how accurately the restoration connects with implants. Research methodologies need standardization for further validation.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In clinical practice, it is essential to have a thorough and up-to-date comprehension of various factors that can affect the accuracy of digital impressions and the fit of the final prosthesis in implant prosthodontics.

Trueness of Intraoral Scanners in Different Scan Patterns for Full-Arch Digital Implant Impressions

The optimal scan pattern for full-arch digital implant impressions remains to be determined. This study aimed to analyze the effects of different scan patterns on the trueness of intraoral scanners for full-arch digital implant impressions. A maxillary plaster model with 4 implant analogs was employed as the master model. Scan bodies were attached to the master model and scanned with a laboratory scanner to obtain reference data. Test scans were obtained using 3 different scan patterns with Cerec Primescan and Trios 3. Each test datum was superimposed onto the reference data. The trueness was assessed by determining the 3D distance and angular deviations between the test and reference data. Significant differences in 3D distance deviation were detected among the scan patterns for both scanners. Significant differences in angle deviation were detected among the scan patterns for the Cerec Primescan, whereas it was not substantial for the Trios 3. Cerec Primescan exhibited superior trueness across all scan patterns compared with Trios 3. The zigzag pattern resulted in more accurate scans for the Cerec Primescan, whereas both the zigzag and occlusal-palatal-buccal patterns showed higher accuracy for the Trios 3.

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.

Accuracy analysis of robotic-assisted immediate implant placement: A retrospective case series

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the accuracy of a robotic computer-assisted implant surgery (r-CAIS) for immediate implant placement.

METHODS

Patients requiring immediate implant placement in the maxillary anterior region were enrolled for r-CAIS. Before surgery, the patients underwent a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan with a positioning marker. Virtual implant placement position and drilling sequences were planned. Following spatial registration and calibration, the implants were placed with the robotic system under supervision. A postoperative CBCT was taken to control the actual implant positions. The DICOM data of the virtually planned and the actually placed implant were superimposed and registered through the accuracy verification software of the robotic system. The accuracy was calculated automatically. The deviation at the mesial-distal, labial-palatal, and apico-coronal directions were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients with 20 implants were included. No adverse surgical events or postoperative complications were reported. The global platform, apex, and angular deviation were 0.75 ± 0.20 mm (95 % CI: 0.65 to 0.84 mm), 0.70 ± 0.27 mm (95 % CI: 0.57 to 0.82 mm), and 1.17 ± 0.73° (95 % CI: 0.83 to 1.51°), respectively. Moreover, the vertical platform and apex deviation were 0.50 ± 0.31 mm, (95 % CI: 0.35 to 0.64 mm) and 0.48 ± 0.32 mm, (95 % CI: 0.33 to 0.63 mm), respectively. All the placed implant positions were further labial and apical than the planned ones, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

High accuracy of immediate implant placement was achieved with the robotic system.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Our study provided evidence to support the potential of the robotic system in implant placement, even in challenging scenarios.

Effect of splinting scan bodies on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans with 5 different intraoral scanners

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The absence of fixed reference points can affect the trueness of complete arch intraoral digital implant scans. The effect of splinting intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) or the inclusion of artificial landmarks (AL) on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans is still unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of splinting ISBs or the inclusion of AL on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans with 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Six tissue-level dental implants (Straumann Tissue Level) were placed in an edentulous patient, and the correspondent definitive cast was digitized with a desktop scanner (IScan4D LS3i) to obtain the reference digital cast. Digital scans (n=10) were performed with 5 IOSs: TRIOS 4, Virtuo Vivo, Medit i700, iTero Element 5D, and Cerec Primescan. Three different scanning techniques were evaluated: conventional (cIOSs), splinted (sIOSs), and AL (AL-IOSs). The scan data obtained were imported into a metrology software program and superimposed to the reference digital cast by using a best-fit algorithm. The overall deviations of the positions of the ISBs were evaluated by using the root-mean-square (RMS) error (α=.05).

RESULTS

The mean ±standard deviation trueness values for the cIOSs, sIOSs, and AL-IOSs groups were 48 ±8 µm, 53 ±7 µm, and 49 ±11 µm, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (P=.06). Significant differences were found for the IOSs used with each technique (P<.001). Primescan (27 ±4 µm cIOSs; 28 ±3 µm sIOSs; 31 ±3 µm AL-IOSs) showed significantly higher trueness than iTero 5D (47 ±5 µm cIOSs; 47 ±4 µm sIOSs; 50 ±6 µm AL-IOSs) (P=.002) and TRIOS 4 (93 ±18 µm cIOSs; 76 ±18 µm sIOSs; 107 ±13 µm AL-IOSs) (P=.001) for all techniques. In addition, no significant differences were found between the techniques by using iTero 5D or Primescan (P=.348 and P=.059, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The cIOSs, sIOSs, and AL-IOSs techniques showed similar trueness. The IOS used influenced the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans.

How does the consecutive use of intraoral scanners affect musculoskeletal health? A preliminary clinical study

BACKGROUND

Minimizing muscle strain and reducing the risk of musculoskeletal disorders associated with intraoral scanner (IOS) usage require ergonomic awareness, device selection, and workplace adjustments in dental practice. This preliminary clinical study aimed to simulate intraoral scanning tasks using wired and wireless IOSs and assess muscle activation and fatigue for both types.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fourteen participants performed intraoral scanning tasks using wired and wireless IOSs (i700; MEDIT), with weights of 280 g and 328 g, respectively. The same computer system and software conditions were maintained for both groups (N = 14 per IOS group). Electrodes were placed on arm, neck, and shoulder muscles, and maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) was measured. Surface electromyography (EMG) was performed during the simulation, and EMG values were normalized using MVC. The root mean square EMG (%MVC) and muscle fatigue (%) values were calculated. Statistical comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U and Friedman tests, with the Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Arm (flexor digitorum superficialis) and neck muscles (left sternocleidomastoid and left splenius capitis) showed significantly higher EMG values with wireless IOS (P < 0.05). The neck (left sternocleidomastoid and right levator scapulae) and shoulder muscles (right trapezius descendens) demonstrated significantly higher muscle fatigue with wireless IOS (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The consecutive use of heavier wireless IOS may increase the risk of muscle activation and fatigue in certain muscles, which may have clinical implications for dentists in terms of ergonomics and musculoskeletal health.

Accuracy of Complete-Arch Scans Obtained by Intraoral Scanner and Smartphone Three-Dimensional Scanning Applications With Different Smartphone Position Setups: An In Vitro Study

INTRODUCTION

The high cost of intraoral scanners (IOS) for complete-arch scans makes them less accessible for many dental practitioners. As a viable alternative, smartphone scanner applications (SMP) provide comparable scanning capabilities at a significantly low cost. However, there is limited data on the accuracy of SMP, especially when used in various smartphone positions. This study aimed to compare the three-dimensional (3D) and linear accuracy of complete-arch scans acquired by an IOS and SMP (KIRI Engine, KIRI Innovations, Guangdong, China) at three shooting angles (0°, 45°, and 90° for SMP_3A) and two shooting angles (30° and 60° for SMP_2A).

METHODS

A stone dental cast was scanned with a laboratory scanner as a reference, with 11 scans performed by an IOS, SMP_2A, and SMP_3A. In 3D analysis, trueness and precision were evaluated through superimposition with the reference scan and within each group, respectively, using the best-fit algorithm of Geomagic Wrap software (3D Systems, Inc., Rock Hill, SC). Trueness in linear discrepancy was assessed by comparing the occlusal-cervical and mesiodistal dimensions of reference teeth (canine, premolar, and molar), intercanine width, and intermolar width on the digital casts to measurements of the stone cast, while precision was measured using the coefficient of variance. Differences between groups were analyzed using the Friedman test, followed by the Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc test with a significance level set at 0.05.

RESULTS

IOS exhibited significantly lower trueness than SMP_2A (p = 0.003) with significantly greater width discrepancies on canines (p = 0.001) and molars (p < 0.001). Discrepancy patterns differed among the three scanning methods. The IOS showed greater discrepancies on the occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth. While SMP_3A demonstrated higher variation on the palatal surfaces and interproximal areas of posterior teeth. For precision, SMP_3A (p = 0.028) and SMP_2A (p = 0.003) showed a significantly lower precision in 3D analysis, but a comparable reproducibility in linear measurement to IOS.

CONCLUSION

TRIOS IOS (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) exhibited lower trueness in 3D and linear accuracy analyses for complete-arch scans. The positions of the smartphone significantly enhanced trueness at the undercut region. SMP_2A and SMP_3A can be a potential alternative for precise linear measurement in complete-arch scans with selective use.

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.

Fracture resistance and failure mode of three esthetic CAD-CAM post and core restorations

BACKGROUND

The rising demand for improved aesthetics has driven the utilization of recently introduced aesthetic materials for creating custom post and core restorations. However, information regarding the fracture resistance of these materials remains unclear, which limits their practical use as custom post and core restorations in clinical applications. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of three non-metallic esthetic post and core restorations and their modes of failure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-nine single-rooted human maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated. A standardized post space preparation of 9mm length was performed to all teeth to receive custom-made post and core restorations. The prepared teeth were randomly allocated to receive a post and core restoration made of one of the following materials (n=13): glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN). An intraoral scanner was used to scan all teeth including the post spaces. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) was used to fabricate post and core restorations. Post and core restorations were cemented using self-adhesive resin cement. All specimens were subjected to fracture resistance testing using a universal testing machine. Failure mode analysis was assessed using a stereomicroscope and SEM. The data was statistically analyzed using One-Way ANOVA test followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni adjusted significance level.

RESULTS

Custom PEEK post and core restorations displayed the least fracture load values at 286.16 ± 67.09 N. In contrast, FRC exhibited the highest average fracture load at 452.60 ± 105.90 N, closely followed by PICN at 426.76 ± 77.99 N. In terms of failure modes, 46.2% of specimens with PICN were deemed non-restorable, while for PEEK and FRC, these percentages were 58.8% and 61.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this study, both FRC and PICN demonstrated good performance regarding fracture resistance, surpassing that of PEEK.

A systematic review of factors impacting intraoral scanning accuracy in implant dentistry with emphasis on scan bodies

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to explore and identify the factors that influence the accuracy of intraoral scanning in implant dentistry, with a specific focus on scan bodies (ISBs).

METHODS

Following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, this study conducted a thorough electronic search across MedLine, PubMed, and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Articles were screened based on titles, abstracts, and full texts for relevance. The Robins I tool assessed the risk of bias in various study types. Data extraction occurred based on predetermined parameters for studying specimens and assessing outcomes.

RESULTS

16 studies met the specified criteria and were consequently included in the systematic review. Due to variations in variables and methods across the selected studies, statistical comparison of results was not feasible. Therefore, a descriptive review approach was chosen, acknowledging the substantial heterogeneity in the reviewed literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The precision of virtual scan results is contingent upon diverse characteristics of ISBs and implants. These factors encompass their placement within the dental arch, structural design, shape, material composition, color, and the manufacturing system, all of which contribute to scan accuracy. Additionally, considerations such as the intraoral scanner (IOS) type, scanning technique, use of scan aids, inter-implant distance, scan span, and the number of implants warrant evaluation. In the context of capturing implant positions, intraoral scanning with ISBs demonstrates comparable accuracy to traditional impression methods, particularly in single and short-span scenarios. However, the existing data lacks sufficient information on in vivo applications to formulate clinical recommendations.

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.

The internal and marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate endocrowns fabricated using intra and extraoral scanners: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The impression technique highly influences the adaptation of ceramic restorations. Not enough information is available to compare the marginal (MF) and internal fit (IF) of endocrowns fabricated with various digitization techniques. Therefore, this in-vitro study aimed to compare the MF and IF of lithium disilicate (LDS) endocrowns fabricated through direct and indirect digital scanning methods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One extracted maxillary molar was used to fabricate endocrowns. The digitization of the model was performed with (G1) direct scanning (n = 10) utilizing an intraoral scanner (IOS), (G2) indirectly scanning the conventional impression taken from the model using the same IOS (n = 10), (G3) indirectly digitalizing the obtained impression using an extraoral scanner (EOS) (n = 10), and (G4) scanning the poured cast using the same EOS (n = 10). The MF and IF of the endocrowns were measured using the replica method and a digital stereomicroscope. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze data.

RESULTS

The studied groups differed significantly (p<0.001). G2 (130.31±7.87 μm) and G3 (48.43±19.14 μm) showed the largest and smallest mean vertical marginal gap, respectively. G2 and G3 led to the highest and lowest internal gaps in all regions, respectively. With significant differences among the internal regions (p<0.001), the pulpal area demonstrated the most considerable misfit in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning the impression using an extraoral scanner showed smaller marginal and internal gaps.

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.

Digital registration versus cone-beam computed tomography for evaluating implant position: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) examination is considered a reliable method for clinicians to assess the positions of implants. Nevertheless, CBCT has drawbacks involving radiation exposure and high costs. Moreover, the image quality can be affected by artifacts. Recently, some literature has mentioned a digital registration method (DRM) as an alternative to CBCT for evaluating implant positions. The aim of this clinical study was to verify the accuracy of the DRM compared to CBCT scans in postoperative implant positioning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 36 patients who received anterior maxillary implants were included in this clinical study, involving a total of 48 implants. The study included 24 patients in the single implant group and 12 patients in the dual implant group. The postoperative three-dimensional (3D) positions of implants were obtained using both CBCT and DRM. The DRM included three main steps. Firstly, the postoperative 3D data of the dentition and intraoral scan body (ISB) was obtained through the intraoral scan (IOS). Secondly, a virtual model named registration unit which comprised an implant replica and a matching ISB was created with the help of a lab scanner and reverse engineering software. Thirdly, by superimposing the registration unit and IOS data, the postoperative position of the implant was determined. The accuracy of DRM was evaluated by calculating the Root Mean Square (RMS) values after superimposing the implant positions obtained from DRM with those from postoperative CBCT. The accuracy of DRM was compared between the single implant group and the dual implant group using independent sample t-tests. The superimposition deviations of CBCT and IOS were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The overall mean RMS was 0.29 ± 0.05 mm. The mean RMS was 0.30 ± 0.03 mm in the single implant group and 0.29 ± 0.06 mm in the dual implant group, with no significant difference (p = 0.27). The overall registration accuracy of the IOS and CBCT data ranged from 0.14 ± 0.05 mm to 0.21 ± 0.08 mm.

CONCLUSION

In comparison with the 3D implant positions obtained by CBCT, the implant positions located by the DRM showed clinically acceptable deviation ranges. This method can be used in single and dual implant treatments to assess the implant positions.

Improving the accuracy of complete arch implant digital scans by using auxiliary clips for intraoral scan bodies: A dental technique

A technique to improve the accuracy of complete arch implant intraoral digital scans and the accuracy of their virtual casts is described. Obtaining accurate complete arch implant intraoral digital scans with an intraoral scanner is challenging because of the smooth and movable tissues of edentulous areas. The described technique uses auxiliary clips attached to intraoral scan bodies to cover interimplant edentulous spans with immobile tooth-like geometric references that are more favorable for intraoral scanning. The technique is designed to be user friendly and compatible with any intraoral scanner.

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

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

A guide for selecting the intraoral scan extension when fabricating tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses

OBJECTIVES

To describe a new classification for intraoral scans based on the scan extension and to introduce a decision guideline to choose the scan extension for fabricating tooth- and implant-supported fixed dental prostheses (FDPs).

OVERVIEW

Multiple operator- and patient-related factors have been identified that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scan extension. However, the decision criteria for selecting scan extension for fabricating tooth- and implant-supported restorations is unclear. Based on the extension of the intraoral digital scans, three types of scans can be defined: half-arch (anterior or posterior), extended half-arch, and complete-arch scan. Variables to consider when choosing the scan extension include the number and location of units being restored, as well as the extension and location of edentulous areas. Additionally, the accuracy of the virtual definitive cast and the accuracy of the maxillomandibular relationship captured by using IOSs should be differentiated.

CONCLUSIONS

A decision tree for selecting the scan extension is presented. The decision is based on the number and location of units being restored, and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with reduced scan extension are indicated when fabricating tooth- and implant-supported crowns or short-span fixed prostheses, when the patient does not have more than one missing tooth in the area of the dental arch included in the scan. For the remaining clinical conditions, complete-arch intraoral scans are recommended.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scan extension is a clinician's decision that should be based on the number and location of units being restored and the extension and location of edentulous areas. Intraoral scans with a reduced scan extension is recommended, when possible.

Influence of scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions using seven different scanbodies and four intraoral scanners. A 3D-printed maxillary model with six implants and their respective multi-unit abutments was used for this study. Seven scanbodies (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB4, SB5, SB6, and SB7) and four intraoral scanners (Primescan®, Omnican®, Trios 3®, and Trios 4®) were assessed. Each combination group was scanned ten times and a dental lab scanner (D2000, 3Shape) was used as a reference. All scans were exported as STL files, imported into Convince software (3Shape) for alignment, and later into Blender software, where their 3D positions were analyzed using a Python script. The 3D deviation, angular deviation, and linear distance between implants #3 and #14 were also measured. Accuracy was measured in terms of "trueness" (scanbody 3D deviation between intraoral scan and desktop scan). Kruskal-Wallis followed by the Bonferroni correction was used to analyze the data (⍺ = .05). The study found statistically significant differences in digital impression accuracy among the scanners and scanbodies (p<0.001). When comparing different intraoral scanners, the Primescan system showed the smallest 3D deviation (median 110.59 μm) and differed statistically from the others, while Trios 4 (median 122.35 μm) and Trios 3 (median 130.62 μm) did not differ from each other (p = .284). No differences were found in the linear distance between implants #3 and #14 between Trios 4, Primescan, and Trios 3 systems. When comparing different scanbodies, the lowest median values for 3D deviation were obtained by SB2 (72.27μm) and SB7 (93.31μm), and they did not differ from each other (p = .116). The implant scanbody and intraoral scanner influenced the accuracy of digital impressions on completely edentulous arches.

Accuracy of digital implant impressions obtained using intraoral scanners: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo studies

PURPOSE

This systematic review aimed to investigate the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) impressions of implant-supported restorations in in vivo studies.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search and review of studies on the accuracy of IOS implant impressions were conducted to analyze the peer-reviewed literature published between 1989 and August 2023. The bias analysis was performed by two reviewers. Data on the study characteristics, accuracy outcomes, and related variables were extracted. A meta-analysis of randomized control trials was performed to investigate the impact of IOS on peri-implant crestal bone loss and the time involved in the impression procedure.

RESULTS

Ten in vivo studies were included in this systematic review for final analysis. Six studies investigated the trueness of IOS impressions, but did not reach the same conclusions. One study assessed the precision of IOS impressions for a single implant. Four clinical studies examined the accuracy of IOS implant impressions with a follow-up of 1-2 years. In full arches, IOS impression procedure needed significantly less time than conventional one (mean difference for procedure time was 8.59 min [6.78, 10.40 min], P < 0.001), prosthetic survival rate was 100%, and marginal bone levels of all participants could be stably maintained (mean difference in marginal bone loss at 12 months was 0.03 mm [-0.08, 0.14 mm], P = 0.55).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy of IOS impressions of implant-supported restorations varied greatly depending on the scanning strategy. The trueness and precision of IOS in the partial and complete arches remain unclear and require further assessment. Based on follow-up clinical studies, IOS impressions were accurate in clinical practice. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as some evidences are obtained from the same research group.

Influence of age, training, intraoral scanner, and software version on the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of operator age on the scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of inexperienced operators when compared with experienced operators, and how training, intraoral scanner (IOS), and software version affect scan accuracy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty-four operators were sorted into groups: G1 (operators <25 years old, no experience), G2 (operators >40 years old, no experience), and G3 (experienced IOS operators). They conducted partial-arch scans before and after a 4-session training with two IOSs (Trios 3 and True Definition) and two software versions. These scans were compared with the reference scans obtained from conventional impressions and a laboratory scanner (IScan D103i) to evaluate trueness (mean root mean square values) and precision (standard deviation of root mean square values) with a software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn's tests were used to evaluate the effect of age on the scan accuracy of inexperienced groups when compared with experienced operators, while the effect of training, IOS, and software version on scan accuracy was evaluated with Wilcoxon or Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Before training, G1 and G2 scans had similar accuracy (p ≥ 0.065). After training, G1 scans had higher accuracy when IOS data was pooled and had higher precision with TD (p ≤ 0.004). Training increased the scan accuracy (p < 0.001), while newer software increased the trueness of inexperienced operator scans (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

Age affected the scan accuracy of inexperienced operators after training, indicating that extended training may be required for older operators. Training increased the scan accuracy, and newer software increased the trueness of inexperienced operator scans.

Accuracy of digitally coded healing abutments: A systematic review

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the in vitro accuracy of dental implant impressions taken using digitally coded healing abutments (CHAs) compared with impressions taken with conventional techniques (CI) and/or within the CHA group at varying degrees of angulations for multiple implant units. Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic electronic search in the MedLine, PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Some of the employed key terms, combined with the help of Boolean operators, were: "digitally coded healing abutments", "encode healing abutment", "dental implants", "impression accuracy", "digital impression", and "conventional impression". Publication dates ranged from January 2010 to November 2022. A total of 7 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 6 studies compared the accuracy of CHA with conventional pick-up impression techniques, and one study only used CHAs at different angulations and heights to compare accuracy within the group. The results were divided into Group A (elastomeric impression of CHA) and Group B (CHA + Intraoral scanner). According to the results of this systematic review, elastomeric impression of CHA performed poorly when compared to CI for multiple implants, although an intraoral scan of CHA appears to be more accurate. Within the CHA group, the angulation and visible height of CHA play a significant role in impression accuracy. However, more studies are needed before CHA can be recommended for all non-parallel multiple implant-supported restorations.

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.

Current Progress and Challenges of Using Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Dentistry-A Narrative Review

The concept of machines learning and acting like humans is what is meant by the phrase "artificial intelligence" (AI). Several branches of dentistry are increasingly relying on artificial intelligence (AI) tools. The literature usually focuses on AI models. These AI models have been used to detect and diagnose a wide range of conditions, including, but not limited to, dental caries, vertical root fractures, apical lesions, diseases of the salivary glands, maxillary sinusitis, maxillofacial cysts, cervical lymph node metastasis, osteoporosis, cancerous lesions, alveolar bone loss, the need for orthodontic extractions or treatments, cephalometric analysis, age and gender determination, and more. The primary contemporary applications of AI in the dental field are in undergraduate teaching and research. Before these methods can be used in everyday dentistry, however, the underlying technology and user interfaces need to be refined.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

Comparison of the Time and Accuracy of Intraoral Scans Performed by Dentists, Nurses, Postgraduates, and Undergraduates

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the scanning time (ST) and accuracy of 10 repeated upper and lower dentition scans by four groups of operators with different professional backgrounds.

METHODS

There were a total of 32 participants, including dentists, nurses, postgraduates, and undergraduates (n=8). They received the same training about intraoral scanning and then performed 10 repeat scans on the plaster maxillary and mandibular dentition models in a manikin head, with the first five scans being the T1 phase and the last five scans being the T2 phase. Each ST was recorded. Trueness and precision were evaluated by root mean square (RMS) value gained from alignments of corresponding virtual models. For statistical analysis, the paired-sample t-tests, one-way ANOVA, and Pearson correlation tests were employed (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Limiting the comparison in scan phase and scan target the sequence of STs for the four groups was the same (p<0.05), by which undergraduates, postgraduates, nurses, and dentists were in descending order. Undergraduates gained the best precision, followed by postgraduates, dentists, and nurses, in both maxillary and mandibular scanning (p<0.05). Compared with corresponding items of the T1 phase, the trueness of the T2 phase was much higher (p<0.05), while the ST of the T2 phase was much shorter (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The operator's professional background affects the precision and scanning time but not the trueness. Most dental personnel have good access to the intraoral scanner. As the number of scans increased, the accuracy and scanning efficiency also improved.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA

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

SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

Primary stability of implant placement and loading related to dental implant materials and designs: A literature review

A variety of implant placement and loading protocols are identified, ranging from immediate implant placement on the day of extraction to delayed placement for at least 6 months after complete healing. The method of assessment of implant placement and loading plays an important role in the implantation. The expected clinical outcomes depend largely on multiple factors, such as the macroscopic design of the implant, surgical technique, and the quality and quantity of local bone in contact with the implant, which would be described in detail. The purpose of this literature review was to explore the relationship between the factors influencing the implant placement stability and implant design. By understanding the original appearance of implant design and the stability requirements of implant placement, it is hoped that more research in the future can meet the needs of dentists and patients.

Influence of the dental arch and number of cutting-off and rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of implant scans in partially edentulous situations

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of the dental arch and cutting-off and rescanning procedures on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans in partially edentulous arches.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A maxillary and a mandibular partially edentulous typodont with implant abutment analogs placed in the right and left first molar and right central incisor sites were digitized to create reference models by using an industrial optical scanner (7 Series Desktop Scanner; Dentalwings). Two experimental groups were scanned using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 4; 3Shape A/S): the Maxillary group (Mx) and the Mandibular group (Mb). Four subgroups were generated depending on the number of rescanned mesh holes: No holes (Mx-G0, Mb-G0), 1 hole (Mx-G1, Mb-G1), 2 holes (Mx-G2, Mb-G2) and 3 holes (Mx-G3, Mb-G3). A 3-dimensional metrology software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems) was used to measure the difference between the reference and the experimental scans computing the root mean square (RMS) error calculation. Two-way ANOVA and a post-hoc Tukey test were used to analyze the trueness data (α=0.05). Levene test was used to evaluate the prevision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The Mx group obtained a trueness mean value of 54 ± 17 µm and a mean precision value of 54 ± 17 µm, while the Mb group presented a trueness mean value of 67 ± 23 µm and a mean precision value of 66 ± 22 µm. The Mx group demonstrated significantly better trueness than the Mb group (P<.001). The G0 and G1 subgroups had the highest trueness values among the subgroups tested. No significant difference was observed between G0 and G1, G1 and G2, and G2 and G3 subgroups in trueness and precision. However, the G0 had significantly better trueness and precision values compared to G2 and G3 subgroups. In addition, the G1 had significantly better trueness values than the G3 subgroup. However, the Levene test revealed no difference in the precision mean values among the subgroups tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant scanning trueness was affected by the dental arch and the number of rescanned mesh holes using the IOS tested. A higher number of rescanned mesh holes decreased the scanning trueness. The stitching algorithm of the IOS software tested after the mesh hole scan demonstrated a significant error, especially when multiples mesh holes are involved in the same arch.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Given that cutting-off and rescanning techniques can reduce trueness, clinicians should consider whether these techniques are necessary in complete digital workflows. This is particularly important when fabricating multiple single implant-supported restorations in the same arch.

Contemporary Role and Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies play a significant role and significantly impact various sectors, including healthcare, engineering, sciences, and smart cities. AI has the potential to improve the quality of patient care and treatment outcomes while minimizing the risk of human error. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming the dental industry, just like it is revolutionizing other sectors. It is used in dentistry to diagnose dental diseases and provide treatment recommendations. Dental professionals are increasingly relying on AI technology to assist in diagnosis, clinical decision-making, treatment planning, and prognosis prediction across ten dental specialties. One of the most significant advantages of AI in dentistry is its ability to analyze vast amounts of data quickly and accurately, providing dental professionals with valuable insights to enhance their decision-making processes. The purpose of this paper is to identify the advancement of artificial intelligence algorithms that have been frequently used in dentistry and assess how well they perform in terms of diagnosis, clinical decision-making, treatment, and prognosis prediction in ten dental specialties; dental public health, endodontics, oral and maxillofacial surgery, oral medicine and pathology, oral & maxillofacial radiology, orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, pediatric dentistry, periodontics, prosthodontics, and digital dentistry in general. We will also show the pros and cons of using AI in all dental specialties in different ways. Finally, we will present the limitations of using AI in dentistry, which made it incapable of replacing dental personnel, and dentists, who should consider AI a complimentary benefit and not a threat.

Validation of Digital Impressions' Accuracy Obtained Using Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

At present, the evidence regarding digital impressions' accuracy recorded by using digital scanners is lacking. This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the type of scanning (intraoral/extraoral) affects the Accuracy of Digital Impressions.

METHOD

Two independent reviewers performed a systematic search in the database both electronically and manually (PubMed, Ebsco HOST, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) for articles published from 1 January 2010 to 1 December 2022. This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO CRD42020188765) and followed the PRISMA statement. The question in focus was as follows: Does the type of scanning (intraoral or extraoral) affect the accuracy of digital impression?

RESULTS

A total of 449 papers were obtained by searching electronically and manually. In total, 15 complete-text papers qualified for assessment based on eligibility criteria. After reading the full-text articles, five studies were excluded. Ten studies were selected for the qualitative analysis. The qualitative data reported that the accuracy of both types of scanners (intraoral and extraoral) lies within the range of clinical acceptability. Nevertheless, the intraoral scanners seem to be more accurate when compared to the extraoral scanners for a partial arch situation.

CONCLUSIONS

Scanning type affects the accuracy of the digital impression. Various factors influence the scanning ability. Intraoral scanners seem to be more accurate compared to extraoral scanners for a partial arch situation. More studies comparing the accuracy of the intraoral scanner and extraoral scanner for a complete arch scan and in an in vivo study setting are needed.

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.

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.

Digitization accuracy and scannability of different prosthodontic materials: An in vitro trial

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Digital scanning of different prosthodontic materials is commonplace in contemporary practice. However, the scannability of prosthodontic materials has not been thoroughly investigated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and measure the unscanned area in a preset time limit of commonly used framework materials.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A mandibular acrylic resin reference dental typodont with 3 teeth, with the central one prepared for a complete coverage crown, was digitized by using a desktop scanner. A complete coverage crown was generated in standard tessellation language (STL) format. Three groups were created from the digital design according to the crown material: milled polyetheretherketone (PEEK), milled airborne-particle abraded titanium, and milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA). They were scanned with the desktop scanner to be used as reference files for each group. The intraoral scanner Medit i700 was used to digitize each specimen 10 times (n=10). Using a nonmetrology grade software program, the deviations between the test STL file of the intraoral scanner and the reference STL file of the desktop scanner were assessed by using the RMS values. The unscanned surface area in a preset time limit of 6 seconds (scannability) was assessed. Groups were compared by using 1-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post hoc test with Bonferroni correction when the results were significant. All tests were 2-tailed (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Regarding deviation analysis, RMS discrepancies were computed, and significant differences in trueness were found (P<.001) among the 3 studied groups. The titanium group had the highest trueness followed by the PEEK and PMMA groups, which were statistically similar (P>.05). Precision differed significantly among the 3 studied groups (P<.001). PEEK was the most precisely scanned material followed by titanium, and the PMMA group had the least precision. Regarding scannability, there were overall significant differences (P<.001). Titanium was the most scannable, followed by PEEK and then PMMA.

CONCLUSIONS

Airborne-particle abraded titanium had better trueness and scannability than PEEK and PMMA. However, PEEK was the most precisely scanned material.

Reverse scan technique: A verification method for the implant position in intraoral scans

This article describes a fully digital method of verifying and increasing the accuracy of the position of implants in extensive prosthetic restorations. This cost-effective, timesaving, and versatile procedure uses a laboratory scanner, a scannable implant analog, and a printed interim implant-supported prosthesis to refine the virtual definitive cast.

Accuracy of five different 3D printing workflows for dental models comparing industrial and dental desktop printers

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, in terms of trueness and precision, of printed models using five different industrial and dental desktop 3D printers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Full-arch digital models with scanbodies of 15 patients were printed with five different 3D printers. The industrial printers were 3D system Project MJP2500 (3DS) and Objet30 OrthoDesk (Obj). The dental desktop printers were NextDent 5100 (ND), Formlabs Form 2 (FL) and Rapidshape D30 (RS). A total of 225 printed models were analysed. The printed models were digitized and compared with the reference cast model using the Control X software (Geomagic). The descriptive statistics and one-way ANOVA with the post hoc Tukey test were performed (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The one-way ANOVA for the trueness and precision of the printed model presented the best results for the 3DS, followed by ND, Obj, FL and RS (P < 0.01). In the scanbody zone, the best results were for the 3DS group, followed by Obj, ND, FL and RS (P < 0.01). Comparing the technologies, the Multijet technology used in industrial printers presented better results than the DLP and SLA technologies used in dental desktop printers (P > 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

There were statistically significant differences in terms of the accuracy of the printed models, with better results for the industrial than the dental desktop 3D printers.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The industrial 3D printers used in dental laboratories presented better accuracy than the in-office dental desktop 3D printers, and this should be considered when the best accuracy is needed to perform final prosthetic restorations.

Atraumatic intraoral scans and virtual hybrid casts for custom implant abutments and zirconia implants: Accuracy of the workflow

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Making impressions of 2-piece implants is typically associated with the repeated disassembly and reassembly of superstructures and related to soft-tissue trauma. Intraoral scanning of 1-piece zirconia implants is problematic because scan bodies are not readily available. Whether using virtual hybrid casts generated by merging intraoral scan data with the known surface geometry of abutments can solve these difficulties is not clear because data on accuracy of the workflow are sparse.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of virtual hybrid casts with respect to the impact of different gingival situations. The workflow was designed to render pointless the use of impression posts and scan bodies and avoid any displacement of the gingiva.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The mandibular right first molar in a typodont was replaced with a 2-piece titanium implant with a custom abutment and then a 1-piece zirconia implant. Three situations representing different gingival heights covering the abutments were simulated. Twelve intraoral scans were made for each situation to capture the recordable parts of the abutments, and virtual hybrid casts were constructed by superimposing and merging the intraoral scan data with the original laboratory scan data of the abutments. Hybrid casts were compared with reference data by using the root mean square error. Scan body-related and cast scan-related protocols were performed representing conventional digital workflows. Statistical analysis with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests with the Bonferroni correction was conducted with a statistical software program (α=.05).

RESULTS

Deviation was low in the hybrid casts of the custom abutment when the entire abutment was recorded (6.5 μm; IQR: 3.0 μm), when the preparation margin was disguised (7.0 μm; IQR: 1.0 μm), and when half of the abutment was covered (8.0 μm; IQR: 4.0 μm). The accuracy in the 1-piece zirconia implant was 10.0 μm (IQR: 4.0 μm) when the whole surface of the abutment was visible and 12.5 μm (IQR: 6.0 μm) when the preparation margin was covered. When only half of the abutment was captured, a larger deviation of 22.0 μm (IQR: 7.0 μm) was observed. The hybrid cast concept demonstrated superior accuracy compared with protocols using scan bodies (76.0 μm; IQR: 27.0 μm) and cast scans (23.0 μm; IQR: 15.0 μm).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital intraoral scanning and the generation of virtual hybrid casts provide high accuracy and are suitable for the fabrication of single-implant-supported restorations. The atraumatic procedure avoids tissue manipulation and reduces clinical effort.

Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans

OBJECTIVES

To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4): occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).

RESULTS

Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans.

Intraoral Scans of Full Dental Arches: An In Vitro Measurement Study of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS), according to different scanning strategies and to the experience of the operator. Six IOS setups were used in this study. Ten scans of a complete epoxy-resin-made maxillary dental arch were performed with each IOS, using four different scanning techniques (manufacturer-suggested scanning strategy, cut-out rescan technique, simplified scanning technique, novel scanning technique). Scans were also performed by an expert operator in the field of digital dentistry. An operator with no experience in the field of intraoral scans performed 10 scans following each of the scanning strategy suggested by the manufacturer. The master model was scanned with an industrial high-resolution reference scanner to obtain a highly accurate digitized reference model. All the digital models were aligned with the reference model using a software aimed at comparing the STL files. A total of n = 300 scans were performed. Once the data were pooled, Medit i700 and Primescan obtained the best results in terms of both trueness and precision, showing no statistically significative differences (p > 0.05) to the first and the second scanning technique, Medit i700 scanner allowed to obtain the best values both in terms of trueness (24.4 ± 2.1 μm and 21.4 ± 12.9 μm, respectively) and precision compared to other IOS (23.0 ± 1.6 μm and 30.0 ± 18.0 μm, respectively). When considering the third scanning technique, Medit i700 recorded the best values in terms of trueness while Primescan recorded the best values in terms of precision (24.0 ± 2.7 μm and 26.8 ± 13.7 μm, respectively). When considering the two operators, significant differences between the two were found only with Medit i700 (p < 0.001). The examined IOS showed statistically significant differences in terms of trueness and precision. The used scanning strategy is a factor influencing the accuracy of IOS. Considering the expertise of the operators, clinically scanning strategies are not operative sensitive in terms of accuracy.

Effect of measurement techniques and operators on measured deviations in digital implant scans

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of different measurement techniques and operators on measured deviations in vitro implant scans.

METHODS

A 2-piece system that comprises a healing abutment (HA) and a scan body (SB) was mounted onto an implant at right first molar site of a polymethylmethacrylate mandibular dentate model. Model was digitized by using an industrial scanner (reference model scan, n = 1) and an intraoral scanner (test scan, n = 20). All standard tessellation language files were imported into a 3-dimensional analysis software and superimposed. Three operators with similar experience performed circle-based and point-based deviation analyses (n = 20). Deviations measured with different techniques were compared with paired samples t-test within each operator, while the reliability of the operators was assessed by using F-tests for both technqiues (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

Point-based technique resulted in lower deviations than circle-based technique for all operators (P = .001) with to higher reliability among operators (ICC = 0.438, P = .001). The correlation among the operators was nonsignificant when circle-based technique was used (ICC = 0.114, P = .189).

CONCLUSION

Lower deviations were detected with the point-based technique. In addition, different operators' measurements had higher correlation when point-based technique was used compared with circle-based technique.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Point-based technique may be preferred over circle-based technique for research studies on scan accuracy of implants, given its higher reliability. The accuracy of measured deviations may increase if the number of planes are increased, which can facilitate point generation at different surfaces of the scan body.

In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a modified porcine acellular dermal matrix for soft tissue augmentation

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of a modified porcine acellular dermal matrix (P-ADM), subepithelial connective tissue graft (SCTG) and other commercial bovine acellular dermal matrix membrane materials (B-ADM) on gingival soft tissue augmentation in the oral esthetic zone.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The characteristics of P-ADM were observed by scanning electron microscope (SEM), Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and Masson's trichrome staining (Masson staining). The biocompatibility of P-ADM was verified by CCK8, phalloidin and living/dead cell staining. Beagle dog models were constructed and the thickness of gingiva was analyzed by the intraoral scanner. The morphology was observed by H&E and Masson staining.

RESULTS

Scanning electron microscopy, H&E and Masson staining showed that the P-ADM was mainly composed of collagen fibers, with no component of nuclear. The results of CCK8, phalloidin and living/dead cell staining indicated that the P-ADM had good cytocompatibility and no cytotoxicity. Human gingival fibroblasts were able to adhere and stretch on the surface of the material with pseudopodia. The SCTG group outperformed the B-ADM and P-ADM groups in terms of effectiveness, according to the analysis of digital oral scanning data at various time points following incremental soft tissue surgery. Compared with the B-ADM group, the effect of soft tissue increment was better in the P-ADM group.

CONCLUSIONS

P-ADM, as a biocompatible biomaterial, can be used as an alternative biomaterial for oral soft tissue thickening. However, the results of this study need to be verified by more clinical trials.

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.

Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Conventional impressions and digital intraoral scanning for implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses still have many problems that influence accuracy. Although stereophotogrammetry may offer a reliable alternative to other techniques, it has seldom been investigated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the intraoral scan body deviations of the reference cast with the intraoral scan body distortions obtained by conventional, digital, and stereophotogrammetric techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary "all-on-four" cast was prepared with 2 straight and two 17-degree angled screw-retained abutments screwed on the implant. Three capture techniques were compared: the conventional impression technique (CI group) using impression plaster (IP), the digital intraoral scanning (DIS group) technique, and the stereophotogrammetry (SPG group) technique. A calibrated extraoral scanner was used to digitize the definitive cast to compare its intraoral scan body positions with those of the other techniques in terms of global angular distortion and 3D deviations of the whole scan body and flat angled surface alone by using an inspection and metrology software program and the best fit alignment technique. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests showed normal distribution of the quantitative variables. Thus, the repeated measures analyses of variance followed by univariate analysis and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were performed to analyze the data (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant global angular discrepancies and 3D deviations of the whole scan body and flat angled surface were found among the CI, DI, and SPG groups for both trueness (P<.001) and precision (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The stereophotogrammetry capture technique reported the highest accuracy in terms of trueness and precision for the intraoral scan bodies of all the techniques evaluated. However, at the flat angled surface region of the scan body, higher trueness was detected with the digital technique. Conventional impressions showed better trueness results than the digital ones, but the opposite was true of precision.

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors

OBJECTIVES

To describe the factors related to the operator skills and decisions that influence the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision making when using IOSs and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans.

OVERVIEW

Each IOS system is limited by the hardware and software characteristics of the selected device. The operator decisions that can influence the accuracy of IOSs include the scanning technology and system selection, scanning head size, calibration, scanning distance, exposure of the IOS to ambient temperature changes, ambient humidity, ambient lighting conditions, operator experience, scanning pattern, extension of the scan, cutting off, rescanning, and overlapping procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge and understanding of the operator factors that impact scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs and for successfully integrating IOSs in daily practices.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Operator skills and clinical decisions significantly impact intraoral scanning accuracy. Dental professionals must know and understand these influencing operator factors for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

Intraoral scanning of the edentulous jaw without additional markers: An in vivo validation study on scanning precision and registration of an intraoral scan with a cone-beam computed tomography scan

Purpose

A fully digital approach to oral prosthodontic rehabilitation requires the possibility of combining (i.e., registering) digital documentation from different sources. This becomes more complex in an edentulous jaw, as fixed dental markers to perform reliable registration are lacking. This validation study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of 1) intraoral scanning and 2) soft tissue-based registration of an intraoral scan with a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan for a fully edentulous upper jaw.

Materials and Methods

Two observers independently performed intraoral scans of the upper jaw in 14 fully edentulous patients. The palatal vault of both surface models was aligned, and the inter-observer variability was assessed by calculating the mean inter-surface distance at the level of the alveolar crest. Additionally, a CBCT scan of all patients was obtained and a soft tissue surface model was generated using patient-specific gray values. This CBCT soft tissue model was registered with the intraoral scans of both observers, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to evaluate the reproducibility of the registration method.

Results

The mean inter-observer deviation when performing an intraoral scan of the fully edentulous upper jaw was 0.10 ± 0.09 mm. The inter-observer agreement for the soft tissue-based registration method was excellent (ICC=0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.98).

Conclusion

Even when teeth are lacking, intraoral scanning of the jaw and soft tissue-based registration of an intraoral scan with a CBCT scan can be performed with a high degree of precision.

Conventional and digital complete-arch implant impression techniques: An in vitro study comparing accuracy

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Varying complete-arch digital-implant-scanning techniques have been described, but their accuracy remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effect of the implant angulation and impression method (conventional, intraoral digital scan, intraoral scan with a splinting framework, and combining cone beam computed tomography [CBCT] and intraoral scan) on the accuracy of complete arch implant recording.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The following 2 casts were obtained: one with 4 parallel (P group) and the other with 4 angled (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group). Both the casts were digitized (7Series Scanner) (control file). The following 4 subgroups were created: conventional polyether impression with a splinted framework (CNV subgroup), intraoral scan (IOS subgroup), intraoral scan with a splinting framework (S-IOS subgroup), and intraoral scan combined with CBCT scan (CBCT-IOS subgroup) (n=10). For each file, an implant-supported bar was designed and imported into a program (Netfabb) to perform linear and angular interimplant abutment measurements. Two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and Tukey tests were selected to examine the data (α=.05).

RESULTS

Implant angulation (P=.010) and impression method (P=.003) significantly influenced the linear trueness. The P group (112 μm) obtained better linear trueness than the NP group (144 μm). The CNV subgroup obtained the best linear trueness, while the IOS and CBCT-IOS showed the worst trueness. Group (P<.001) significantly influenced angular trueness. Group (P=.009) and subgroup (P<.001) influenced the linear precision. The P group (72 μm) obtained better linear precision than the NP group (91 μm). The IOS subgroup obtained the best linear precision. Group (P=.034) significantly influenced the angular precision. The P group (0.46 degrees) had higher angular precision compared with the NP group (0.60 degrees).

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation and the impression methods tested, impacted the accuracy of the complete-arch implant recording. Parallel implants had better trueness and precision values than nonparallel implants. The conventional impression method showed the best trueness and precision. Among the digital implant scan methods assessed, the S-IOS and CBCT-IOS subgroups acquired significantly better trueness and precision than the IOS subgroup.