Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position

Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of conventional polyether impressions and digital scans produced by five intra-oral scanners (IOSs) in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism for long-span implant-supported prostheses.

METHODS

This in vitro study involved the impression of a maxillary model with free-end partial edentulism, in which six implants were placed before digitization using a desktop scanner to generate a digital reference model. Conventional impressions (Impregum Penta Soft, 3M) and digital scans with five IOSs (Trios 3 and 4, 3Shape; Primescan, Dentsply-Sirona; CS 3600, Carestream Dental; and i-500, Medit) were obtained. Conventional impressions were digitized using the same desktop scanner. Each digital STL file of conventional or digital impressions was superimposed over the reference STL file to enable comparison. Trueness was assessed by calculating angles and distance deviations. For precision, dispersions of values around their means were also measured.

RESULTS

The mean distance deviation was significantly higher for conventional impressions (454.24 ± 334.70 µm) than for IOSs (ranging from 160.98 ± 204.48 µm to 255.56 ± 395.89 µm) (p < 0.001). The mean angular deviation was high with conventional impressions (1.82 ± 1.51°), intermediate with CS 3600 (1.38 ± 1.42°), Primescan (1.37 ± 2.54°) and Trios 4 (1.30 ± 0.64°) scanners, and lower with I500 (0.97 ± 0.75°) and Trios 3 (1.01 ± 0.85°) scanners (p < 0.001). The dispersion of distance values around their means was lowest with Trios 3 and i-500, followed by CS3600, Primescan, and Trios 4, respectively, and higher for conventional impressions (p < 0.001). The dispersion of angular values was smallest with i-500, Trios 3, and Trios 4 compared with other groups and was highest with Primescan (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the current study, Trios 3 scanner exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by i-500, Trios 4, CS 3600, Primescan, and conventional impressions respectively. IOSs might be reliable for the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Passive adaptation of the implant-supported framework is a challenge when rehabilitating patients with maxillary free-end partial edentulism. While Conventional impressions remain a reliable and validated technique, but IOSs demonstrated higher accuracy, suitable for the fabrication of long-span implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arch.

Evaluation of repeatability of different alignment methods to obtain digital interocclusal records: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The alignment of the maxillary and mandibular digital scans obtained with an intraoral scanner (IOS) generates digital interocclusal records. Although the accuracy of maxillary and mandibular digital scans obtained from an IOS is widely studied, the accuracy of digital interocclusal records obtained with them is not; even less studied is the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the alignment methods that are available to obtain them.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the precision under repeatability conditions (repeatability) of the different alignment methods used to obtain digital interocclusal records.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Digital scans of maxillary and mandibular casts of a dentate healthy adult were acquired with an IOS. Casts were then mounted in maximum intercuspal position in a semi-adjustable mechanical articulator (1801 AR Model PSH Articulator), and left and right occlusal digital scans were acquired with the IOS. Occlusal digital scans were repeated 7 times under repeatability conditions. After obtaining each pair of occlusal digital scans, the software program of the IOS automatically aligned the maxillary and mandibular digital scans with occlusal digital scans (TRI method), resulting in 7 digital interocclusal records composed of aligned maxillary and mandibular digital scans and occlusal digital scans. All 7 sets of aligned digital scans were exported and realigned in a dental computer-aided design software program by means of global and reference alignment methods (EXO-B and EXO-R methods, respectively). To assess the repeatability, the 7 aligned digital scan sets of each group were repositioned in the common coordinate system by aligning maxillary digital scans, and repeatability was calculated in terms of the distance between the vertices of the mandibular digital scans for each of the possible nonrepeating combinations of pairs (7C2=21). The repeatability was tested by using the Kruskal-Wallis test for nonparametric distribution followed by the Mann-Whitney U test and Bonferroni correction for pairwise comparisons (α=.05).

RESULTS

The median with interquartile range for the TRI alignment method was 47 (27) μm for the EXO-B method 41 (25) μm and 16 (5) μm for EXO-R. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistical difference between test groups (P<.05). The post hoc Dunn test with Bonferroni adjustment detected significant statistical differences between the EXO-R-TRI (P<.001) and EXO-R-EXO-B (P<.001) alignment methods.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that the alignment method could influence the repeatability of digital interocclusal records. The reference best-fit alignment method (EXO-R) provided better repeatability.

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.

Influence of implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch intraoral digital scans

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The accuracy of digital implant scans can be affected by the implant angulation, implant depth, or interimplant distance. However, studies analyzing intraoral scanning accuracy with different implant angulations and different scan body heights are scarce.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine the influence of the implant angulation and clinical implant scan body height on the accuracy of complete arch scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two definitive implant casts with 6 implant analogs (Zimmer Biomet) were obtained: 1 cast had all the implant analogs parallel (GP group), and 1 cast had the implant analogs with divergence of up to 30 degrees (GD group). A coordinate measurement machine (Global Evo 09.15.08) was used to measure the positions of the implant analogs. Each group was divided into 3 subgroups depending on the clinical implant scan body height: 10, 6, and 3 mm. An implant scan body (Elos Accurate Scan Body Brånemark system) was positioned on each implant analog. A total of 10 scans of each subgroup were recorded by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). Each STL file obtained was imported into a reverse engineering software program (Geomagic), and linear and angular Euclidean measurements were obtained. The Euclidean calculations between the implant analog positions of the definitive implant casts were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies among the corresponding subgroups. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the lineal measurements were not normally distributed, so the Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparison Dunn tests were used (α=.05). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that the angular measurements were normally distributed. Therefore, the 2-way ANOVA and pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used (α=.05).

RESULTS

The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences in the linear Euclidean medians between the GP and GD groups with different clinical implant scan body heights (H(5)=23.18, P<.001). Significant differences in the linear Euclidean medians were computed between the GP-6 and GD-10 subgroups (P=.009), GD-3 and GD-6 subgroups (P=.029), and GD-3 and GD-10 subgroups (P=.001). Two-way ANOVA revealed that the implant angulation (F(1, 3.3437)=28.93, P<.001) and clinical implant scan body height (F(2, 0.4358)=3.77, P=.029) were significant predictors of discrepancies in the angular measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation and clinical scan body height influenced scanning accuracy. The lowest clinical implant scan body height tested had the lowest accuracy in both parallel and angled implants, but statistically significant differences were found only in the angled group.

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

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

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.

In Vitro Comparison of Three Intraoral Scanners for Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses

With continuing technological developments, there have been advances in the field of fixed prosthetics, particularly in impression-taking techniques. These technological advances mean that a wide variety of diagnostic and/or rehabilitation possibilities can be explored without the need for physical models. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three intraoral scanners used in oral implant rehabilitation using an extraoral scanner as a reference and varying the scanning area. Three models representing different clinical scenarios were scanned 15 times by each intraoral scanner and three times by the extraoral scanner. The readings were analyzed and overlaid using engineering software (Geomagic^® Control X software (Artec Europe, Luxembourg)). Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found between the three intraoral scanners, iTero^® (Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), Medit^® (Medit^®: Seoul, Korea), and Planmeca^® (Planmeca^®: Helsinki, Finland). In all clinical scenarios, the iTero^® scanner had the best trueness (24.4 μm), followed by the Medit^® (26.4 μm) and Planmeca^® (42.1 μm). The Medit^® showed the best precision (18.00 μm) followed by the iTero^® (19.20 μm) and Planmeca^® (34.30 μm). We concluded that the iTero^® scanner had the highest reproducibility and accuracy in the clinical setting.

Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment-scan body system depending on the scan pattern and implant location: an in-vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To test the effect of scan pattern and the location of the implant on the trueness and precision of implant scans when the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system is used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A partially edentulous maxillary model with CHA-SBs secured on implants at 3 different sites in the left quadrant (central incisor, first premolar, and first molar) was fabricated. The model was scanned with an industrial light scanner to generate a master reference model (MRM) file. An intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) was used to perform the test scans (n=8) with 4 different scan patterns (SP1, SP2, SP3, and SP4) with an intraoral scanner. The test scans were superimposed over the MRM file with a metrology software to calculate the distance deviations of the CHA-SB system. Data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests for accuracy (α=.05).

RESULTS

Trueness (P=.001) and precision (P=.018) were significantly affected by the interaction between the scan pattern and implant location. The implant located at the central incisor site (56.7 ±35.9, 36.2 ±18.6) had higher trueness than that of located at the premolar site (94.1 ±20.4, 100.3 ±20) when SP2 (P=.037) and SP4 (P=.002) were used. The implant at the molar site (71.9 ±25.7, 147.2 ±49.7) had trueness either similar to (when SP2 was used, P≥.276) or lower than (when SP4 was used, P≤.024) those of others. Scans of the central incisor and premolar implants had the lowest trueness when scanned with SP1 (P≤.009), while the scans of molar implant showed higher trueness when performed by using SP2 and SP3 when compared with SP4 (P≤.005). When SP4 was used, the implant at the molar site had lower precision (43 ±18.9) than the implants located at the central incisor (14.1 ±11) and premolar sites (15.4 ±11.3) (P=.002). Scan patterns affected the scan precision of central incisor implant (P=.009), as SP4 (14.1 ±11) led to a higher precision than SP1 (47.7 ±27) (P=.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The scan accuracy of combined healing abutment-scan body system was affected by scan pattern and implant location. SP1, which involved palatal and rotational scans resulted in the lowest trueness for central incisor and premolar implants, while the scans of the central incisor implant showed the highest trueness among different sites when SP4 was used. However, the scan pattern and implant site had a minor effect on precision. Scan precision at different implant sites only differed when SP4 was used, which resulted in the lowest precision for molar implant.

Assessing the Effect of Interimplant Distance and Angle on Different Impression Techniques

We aimed to evaluate the trueness of digital and conventional impression techniques based on different angles and distances between implants and the deviation caused by the angle and distance parameters varying between implants. Eight implants were placed in a polyurethane edentulous mandibular model at different angles and distances. After obtaining a 3-dimensional (3D) reference model by using an optical scanner, the model was scanned with three intraoral scanners: Cerec Omnicam (DO), Trios 3 (DT), and Carestream 3500 (DC). Then, the master casts obtained from the conventional impressions (C) were also digitized, and all impression data were imported into reverse engineering software to be compared with the 3D reference model. Distance and angle measurements between adjacent implants were performed, and the data were analyzed with ANOVA–Tukey and Kruskal Wallis tests. The significance level was accepted as p < 0.05. While DT and C groups gave the best results for high interimplant distances, the trueness of intraoral scanners was found to be superior to the conventional method between closer implants. At higher angulations, the angular trueness of C group was found to be significantly lower. At short distances, digital groups showed superiority, and the trueness of conventional impression decreased with higher angulations.

Effect of Implant Angulation on the Rotational Displacement of a 3-Unit Bridge after Digital Impression

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the effect of implant angulation on the rotational displacement of a 3-unit bridge following a digital impression.

Materials and Methods

This in vitro experimental study evaluated 3 master models of the maxilla with Kennedy's class III partial edentulism and bilateral three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Two implants were placed with 0° (first model), 15° (second model), and 30° (third model) interimplant angles. The implants were placed bilaterally at the sites of first premolars and first molars from the posterior towards the anterior region and coded A (posterior) and B (anterior) in the left, and C (posterior) and D (anterior) in the right side. Next, their position was recorded using a coordinate measuring machine to serve as a reference. The models were then scanned by both 3Shape and Sirona digital scanners (12 times by each scanner). The obtained data were compared with the reference data three-dimensionally using GOM Inspect software to determine the rotational displacement of the implants. Data were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA, one-way ANOVA, paired sample t-test, and independent sample t-test (P < 0.05).

Results

Since repeated-measures ANOVA showed that the interaction effect was significant (P = 0.010), the data were analyzed by subgroup analysis. The 3Shape scanner showed significantly higher accuracy for C-D region in model 2 (P = 0.001), and A-B region in model 1 (P ≤ 0.01). In the use of the 3Shape scanner, model 3 showed a lower error rate in the A-B region, compared with models 1 and 2. Model 1 showed higher error rate than models 2 and 3 in the C-D region (P ≤ 0.01). In the use of the Sirona scanner, model 1 showed a higher error rate than models 2 (P = 0.031) and 3 (P = 0.004) in the C-D region.

Conclusion

In digital impressions of angulated implants in 3-unit bridges by using 3Shape and Sirona scanners, the rotational error decreases as the interimplant angle increases.

Congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file: an in vitro analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A CHA-SB was fixed to an implant at the right first molar position in a dentate mandibular model and digitized by using 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (OC), Primescan (PS), and Virtuo Vivo (VV)] (n=8) and an industrial grade optical scanner (ATOS Core 80) (n=1) to generate standard tessellation language (STL) files of the test scans (CHA-SB-STLs) and the master reference model scan (MRM-STL). A reverse engineering software (Studio Geomagic X) was used to superimpose the proprietary library file of the CHASB over the generated STL files. Root mean square (RMS) values representing the deviations between the library file and the superimposed STL files were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA (α=.05). Qualitative analysis of the deviations was performed by visual inspection.

RESULTS

Differences between the congruence of the library file and the CHA-SB scans among different IOSs were nonsignificant (F=1.619, df= 3, P = .207). The single best result was 29 ±28.9 µm for OC, 30.8 ±29.6 µm for VV, 35.6 ±35.5 µm for T3, and 39.5 ±39.2 µm for PS, which were all above the deviation value of the scan performed by using the industrial-grade scanner (23.2 ±23.2 µm).

CONCLUSION

The dimensional congruence between the library file and the standard tessellation language file of the combined healing abutment-scan body system scans was similar when intraoral scanners with different acquisition technologies were used to scan a model with an implant.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scans of the tested intraoral scanners may result in crowns with similar positional accuracy, given the similarities in congruence of their scans with the library file.

Effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans using a combined healing abutment-scan body system

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans conducted with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A CHA-SB system was fixed on implants at left central incisor, first premolar, and first molar sites in a dentate maxillary model. An industrial optical scanner (ATOS Core 80) was utilized to scan and generate a reference model (RM). The model was scanned by three operators (n = 8) using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). A software (GOM Inspect) was used to superimpose IOS test scans over RM and calculations (distance and angular deviations) were carried out to evaluate the accuracy of the scans. Data were compared with a 2-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were employed to resolve significant interactions for trueness and precision (α = .05).

RESULTS

Implant location affected the trueness (P ≤ .001) and the precision (P ≤ .020) (distance and angular deviations). The scans of the implant at the central incisor site had the highest trueness (distance and angular deviations) (P ≤ .016). The scans of the implant at molar site had the lowest precision (distance deviation data) (P ≤ .012). The scans of the implant at premolar site had lower precision (angular deviation data) than the scans of the implant at central incisor site (P = .016). Operators' effect on the accuracy of scans was not significant (P ≥  .051).

CONCLUSION

Implant location affected the scan accuracy of the combined healing abutment-scan body system. The scans of the implant at central incisor site had high trueness. The posterior the implant location, the lower was the precision of the scans. The accuracy of scans of different operators was similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Higher deviations found in scans of posterior maxilla compared with those in the anterior region may require increased chairside adjustments when crowns are to be fabricated using the scans of the tested healing abutment-scan body system. However, clinical studies are necessary to corroborate the findings.

Accuracy of Implant Level Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry Impression Techniques in a Complete Arch with Angled and Parallel Implants: An In Vitro Study

(1) Background: Stereophotogrammetry has recently been investigated showing high accuracy in complete implant supported cases but has scarcely been investigated in cases of tilted implants. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impression techniques (intraoral scanning and photogrammetry) at the level of intraoral scan bodies in terms of angular deviations and 3D discrepancies. (2) Methods: A stone master cast representing an edentulous maxilla using four implant analogs was fabricated. The two anterior implants were parallel to each other, and the two posterior implants were at an angulation of 17 degrees. Digital intraoral scanning (DIOS) impressions were taken after connecting implant level scan bodies to the master cast and STL files were exported (n = 15). Digital photogrammetry (DPG) impressions were captured using a PiC Camera after tightening implant level PiC optical markers and STL files were exported (n = 15). Superimposition was carried out by a software for determining the accuracy of both. (3) Results: Significant angular discrepancies (ΔA) and 3D deviations of scan bodies were found among the groups in trueness with lower deviations for the DPG (p value < 0.001). However, trueness within ISBs varied between angular and 3D deviations and outcomes were not specific to determine the effect of implant angulation. In precision, no significant differences were detected within ISBs and among both groups in terms of angular deviation. However, DPG had less deviations than DIOS group in terms of 3D deviations (p value < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: Digital photogrammetry technique conveyed the utmost accuracy in both trueness and precision for the intraoral scan bodies among both impression methods assessed. In addition, implant angulation did not influence the precision of the impression techniques but affected their trueness without explicit conclusions.

The question about the numerical value and quantitative data transfer of implant prosthodontics-orom experience guidance to digital guidance

The correct implant site design and placement are the basic clinical techniques that must be known for implant restoration. For a long time, most implants have been placed by free hands, and the choice of site is mostly dependent on the accumulation of long-term experience of the surgeon. The selection of implant site guided by this experience analogy logic is often based on the surgeon's level of experience,which often makes it very easy to produce complications related to the implant restoration of the incorrect site. In contrast, a clinical program using digital guidance and real-time measurable verification has emerged based on the restoration-oriented implantation concept, which marks the formation of an accurate, measurable and verifiable whole-process digital implant prototype. Furthermore, from the perspective of surveying, the numerical requirements that digital implant restoration relies on are actually incomplete to the four elements of measurement, which leading to the doubts about its authenticity. This article will question the numbers in implant restoration, and conduct a preliminary demonstration, and propose a new reliable actual measurement and verification method of the correct location and the numerical requirements of the restoration space and a new clinical program that relies on numbers from the perspective of the evolution of digital restoration, guided implantology and actual measurement technology. And this article further discusses the current mainstream implant restoration technology based on experience analogy which cannot effectively support the whole process of digital implant restoration and provides a new logical cognitive basis for the final realization of the entire process of digital implant restoration.

Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review

Background

With the development of intraoral scanners, their trueness and precision have been evaluated in various studies. Through these studies, the amount of accuracy that can be expected from intraoral scanners has gradually been disclosed, at the same time, it was difficult to integrate the results of individual studies due to differences in evaluation methods between studies. The purpose of this article was to review the currently available evidence, summarise what is currently known about IOS, analyse the evaluation methods of each study, and list points to note when interpreting the results.

Main text

Most of the studies were conducted in vitro. The accuracy is evaluated in situations such as single missing teeth, partially edentulous ridges with multiple missing teeth, and fully edentulous jaws. To evaluate the accuracy, direct measurement of distance or angle by coordinate measuring machines and calculation of surface deviation by superimposing surface data were predominantly performed. The influence of parameters such as the number of implants, distance between implants, angle between implants, and experience of the operator was evaluated. Many studies have shown that trueness tends to decrease as the distance between the implants and the scan range increases. It was agreed that the implant angle did not affect either trueness or precision. Regarding other factors, the results varied among studies. Therefore, the effects of these parameters are not clear.

Conclusions

Heterogeneity in the research methodology was prevalent among the studies considered in this review. Therefore, we cannot make a decisive statement regarding the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by IOSs. So far, the comparison of the numerical values of error between studies has yet to elucidate any clear answers, despite small methodological differences.

Bias Evaluation of the Accuracy of Two Extraoral Scanners and an Intraoral Scanner Based on ADA Standards

The spread and application of computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology have contributed to the rapid development of digitalization in dentistry. The accuracy of scan results is closely related to the devising subsequent treatment plans and outcomes. Professional standards for evaluating scanners are specified in the American National Standard/American Dental Association Standard 132 (ANSI/ADA No. 132). The aims of this study were to use the three samples mentioned in ANSI/ADA No. 132 and evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of two extraoral scanners and an intraoral scanner based on the inspection standards recommended by ANSI/ADA No. 132. In this study, two trained operators used two extraoral scanners (E4, 3Shape, Denmark & SHINING DS100+, Shining, China) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS SERIES3, 3Shape, Denmark) to perform 30 scans of each of the three samples at a temperature of 25 ± 2°C and export standard tessellation language files and used reverse engineering software to perform measurements and iterative nearest point matching experiments. The measured values obtained were compared with the reference values measured by a coordinate measuring machine (NC8107, Leader Metrology, USA). We performed a normal distribution test (Shapiro-Wilk test), the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test, and an independent-samples t-test to analyze the reproducibility of each scan for different models. The experimental results indicate that the trueness and precision of the two extraoral scanners and the intraoral scanner had a slight mean deviation. The trueness and precision of the three scanners on the curved surface and groove areas are poor. The accuracy and reproducibility of E4 outperformed SHINING and TRIOS. The iterative closest point matching experiment also showed good matching results. The two extraoral scanners and the intraoral scanner in this study can meet the basic clinical requirements in terms of accuracy, and we hope that digital technology will be more widely used in dentistry in the future.

Trueness of ten intraoral scanners in determining the positions of simulated implant scan bodies

Few investigations have evaluated the 3-dimensional (3D) accuracy of digital implant scans. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of 10 intraoral scanners (IOSs) (CEREC Omnicam, CEREC Primescan, CS 3600, DWIO, i500, iTero Element, PlanScan, Trios 2, Trios 3, and True Definition) in obtaining the accurate positions of 6 cylinders simulating implant scan bodies. Digital scans of each IOS were compared with the reference dataset obtained by means of a coordinate measuring machine. Deviation from the actual positions of the 6 cylinders along the XYZ axes and the overall 3D deviation of the digital scan were calculated. The type of IOSs and position of simulated cylindrical scan bodies affected the magnitude and direction of deviations on trueness. The lowest amount of deviation was found at the cylinder next to the reference origin, while the highest deviation was evident at the contralateral side for all IOSs (p < 0.001). Among the tested IOSs, the CEREC Primescan and Trios 3 had the highest trueness followed by i500, Trios 2, and iTero Element, albeit not statistically significant (p > 0.05), and the DWIO and PlasScan had the lowest trueness in partially edentulous mandible digital implant scans (p < 0.001).

The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this narrative review was to examine the applicability of IOS procedures regarding single and multiple fixed implant restorations. Clinical outcomes for monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations produced through a direct digital workflow were reported.

METHODS

A MEDLINE (Pubmed) search of the relevant English-language literature spanning from January 1st 2015 until March 31st 2020 was conducted. In vitro studies comparing digital implant impression accuracy by different IOS devices or in vitro studies examining differences in accuracy between digital and conventional impression procedures were included. Also, RCTs, clinical trials and case series on the success and/or survival of monolithic zirconia and lithium disilicate restorations on implants, manufactured completely digitally were included. In vitro and in vivo studies reporting on restorations produced through an indirect digital workflow, case reports and non-English language articles were excluded. The aim was to investigate the accuracy of IOS for single and multiple fixed implant restorations compared to the conventional impression methods and report on the variables that influence it. Finally, this study aimed to report on the survival and success of fixed implant-retained restorations fabricated using the direct digital workflow.

RESULTS

For the single and short-span implant sites, IOS accuracy was high and the deviations in the position of the virtual implant fell within the acceptable clinical limits. In the complete edentulous arch with multiple implants, no consensus regarding the superiority of the conventional, splinted, custom tray impression procedure compared to the IOS impression was identified. Moreover, complete-arch IOS impressions were more accurate than conventional, non-splinted, open or close tray impressions. Factors related to scanbody design as well as scanner generation, scanning range and interimplant distance were found to influence complete-arch scanning accuracy. Single implant-retained monolithic restorations exhibited high success and survival rates and minor complications for short to medium follow-up periods.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of identified studies were in vitro and this limited their clinical significance. Nevertheless, intraoral scanning exhibited high accuracy both for single and multiple implant restorations. Available literature on single-implant monolithic restorations manufactured through a complete digital workflow shows promising results for a follow-up of 3-5 years.

An additively manufactured intraoral scan body for aiding complete-arch intraoral implant digital scans with guided integration of 3D virtual representation

This article describes a polymeric additively manufactured intraoral scan body that facilitates a complete-arch intraoral implant digital scan and guides the superimposition procedures between the facial and digital scans comprising the patient's 3D virtual representation. Furthermore, this novel intraoral scan body can be modified for the patient's specific arch dimensions, enhancing patient comfort and facilitating digitizing.

Comparing the accuracy of six intraoral scanners on prepared teeth and effect of scanning sequence

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of six recently introduced intraoral scanners (IOSs) for single crown preparations isolated from the complete arch, and to determine the effect of scanning sequence on accuracy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A complete arch with right and left canine preparations for single crowns was used as a study model. The reference dataset was obtained by scanning the complete arch using a highly accurate industrial scanner (ATOS Core 80, GOM GmbH). Six different IOSs (Trios, iTero, Planmeca Emerald, Cerec Omnicam, Primescan, and Virtuo Vivo) were used to scan the model ten times each. The scans performed with each IOS were divided into two groups, based on whether the scanning sequence started from the right or left quadrant (n=5). The accuracy of digital impression was evaluated using three-dimensional analyzing software (Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems). The Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U statistical tests for trueness analysis and the One-way ANOVA test for precision analysis were performed (α=.05).

RESULTS

The trueness and precision values were the lowest with the Primescan (25 and 10 µm), followed by Trios (40.5 and 11 µm), Omnicam (41.5 µm and 18 µm), Virtuo Vivo (52 and 37 µm), iTero (70 and 12 µm) and Emerald (73.5 and 60 µm). Regarding trueness, iTero showed more deviation when scanning started from the right (P=.009).

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of digital impressions varied depending on the IOS and scanning sequence used. Primescan had the highest accuracy, while Emerald showed the most deviation in accuracy for single crown preparations.

Assessment of Compatibility between Various Intraoral Scanners and 3D Printers through an Accuracy Analysis of 3D Printed Models

To assess the accuracy of various intraoral scanners (IOSs) and to investigate the existence of mutual compatibility that affects the accuracy between IOS and 3-dimensional (3D) printing using a scan quadrant model. For clinical implication, crown preparations and cavity design according to prosthetic diagnosis and treatment considerations must be acquired by a digital scanner. The selected typodont model was scanned using a reference scanner, from which reference (Ref) standard tessellation language (STL) data were created. Data obtained by scanning the typodont model with IOSs based on three different technologies were divided into three groups (CS3600, i500, and Trios3). Scanned data from the groups were divided into sub-groups of digital light processing (DLP), fused deposition modeling (FDM), and stereolithography apparatus (SLA), based on which 3D printed models (3DP) were fabricated. The 3DP dental models were scanned to obtain a total of 90 3DP STL datasets. The best-fit algorithm of 3D analysis software was used for teeth and arch measurements, while trueness was analyzed by calculating the average deviation among measured values based on superimposition of Ref and IOS and 3DP data. The differences between Ref and IOS (Ref-IOS), Ref and 3DP (Ref-IOS/3DP), and IOS and 3DP data (IOS-3DP) were compared and analyzed, while accuracy within each of the three main groups was assessed. For statistical analysis, the Kruskal–Wallis, Mann–Whitney U, and repeated measures ANOVA test were used (p < 0.05). The major finding is that the mutual relationships between IOSs and 3D printers vary depending on the combination. However, i500 intraoral scanner and DLP 3D printer was the combination that showed the best trueness value.

Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Conventional Versus Digital Complete Arch Implant Impressions

PURPOSE

The accuracy of digital impressions is still controversial for complete arch implant cases. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of different intraoral scanners with the conventional technique in terms of trueness and precision in a complete arch implant model.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Eight implants were inserted asymmetrically in a polyurethane edentulous mandibular model with different angulations. A 3-dimensional (3D) reference model was obtained by scanning this polyurethane model with an optical scanner. First, digital impressions were made by using 3 different intraoral scanners: Carestream 3500 (DC), Cerec Omnicam (DO) and 3Shape Trios 3 (DT). Subsequently, a nonsplinted open tray impression technique was used for conventional impression group (C) and then the master casts were digitalized with a lab scanner. Each 10 STL files belonging to 4 different impression groups were imported to a reverse engineering program, to measure distance and angle deviations from the reference model. All statistical analyses were performed after taking absolute values of the data. After comparing the impression groups with one-way ANOVA, the trueness and precision values were analyzed by Tukey post hoc test and 0.05 was used as the level of significance.

RESULTS

The mean trueness of distance was 123.06 ± 89.83 µm for DC, 229.72 ± 121.34 µm for DO, 209.75 ± 47.07 µm for DT, and 345.32 ± 75.12 µm for C group (p < 0.0001). While DC showed significantly lower deviation compared to DO and C, no significant difference was found between DC and DT. C showed the highest distance deviation significantly in all groups; and no significant difference was found between DO and DT groups. In angle measurements; the trueness was 0.26° ± 0.07° for DC, 0.53° ± 0.42° for DO, 0.33° ± 0.30° for DT, and 0.74° ± 0.65° for C group. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of angular trueness (p = 0.074). In terms of the precision for distance, the results of DC 80.43 ± 29.69 µm, DO 94.06 ± 69.96 µm, DT 35.55 ± 28.46 µm and C 66.97 ± 36.69 µm were determined (p = 0.036). The significant difference was found only between DT and DO among all groups. Finally, angular precision was determined to be 0.19° ± 0.11° for DC, 0.30° ± 0.28° for DO, 0.22° ± 0.19° for DT, and 0.50° ± 0.38° for Group C. No significant difference was found between the groups, in terms of angular precision (p = 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

All digital impression groups yielded superior data compared to conventional technique in terms of trueness. DC formed the impression group with the highest trueness in both distance and angular measurements. The results of this in vitro study suggest the use of intraoral scanners compared to the conventional impression techniques in complete arch implant cases with high angulations.

Comparison of the accuracy of different impression procedures in case of multiple and angulated implants : Accuracy of impressions in multiple and angulated implants

Background

There is no consensus in the literature regarding the impression procedures in the presence of multiple and angulated implants.

Methods

Three maxillary master models with 6 implants bilaterally positioned in anterior, premolar and molar regions were fabricated. In model 1, all implants were placed in parallel; in models 2 and 3, anterior implants were buccally inclined and posterior implants were distally inclined in 10- and 20-degrees, respectively. Three different impression copings (hexed, non-hex, multi-unit) and two different impression techniques (splinting and non-splinting) were tested. A total of 180 impressions (n = 10 per group) were made using mono-phase vinyl poly-siloxane. Master models and duplicate casts were scanned by a 5-axis laboratory scanner and data were transferred to a software program for the alignment of master and duplicate copings. Coronal and angular deviations were calculated, and data were statistically analyzed.

Results

For angulated models, the lowest deviation values were detected at the splinted non-hex coping group (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

Implant angulation, impression coping type, and splinting the impression copings had significant effects on the accuracy of impressions.

Trial registration

Not applicable.