The Influence of Laboratory Scanner Versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining the Implant Axis by Using Three Different Scan Abutments

Effect of implant scan body geometric modifications on the trueness and scanning time of complete arch intraoral implant digital scans: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The effect of the surface geometry of implant scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy and scanning time of complete arch implant digital scans remains uncertain.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether geometric modifications on implant scan bodies (nonmodified, subtractively modified, and additively modified ISBs) affect the trueness and scanning time of complete arch intraoral implant digital scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A completely edentulous maxillary cast with 2 anterior parallel and two 17-degree posteriorly tilted implant abutment analogs was prepared. A digitized reference was created from this cast with polyetheretherketone (PEEK) (CARES Mono Scanbody for screw-retained abutment) ISBs by using a desktop scanner (E3). Three different groups were created: nonmodified (NM group), subtractively modified (SM group), and additively modified (AM group). For the NM group, no modifications were made to the ISBs. For the SM group, 4 round-shaped grooves were created on the buccal, lingual, mesial, and distal sides. For the AM group, PEEK beads were printed and cemented on the same areas of the ISB of the SM group. Fifteen consecutive scans were captured with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) for each group, and the scanning time was recorded. By using a metrology software program, scans of each group were superimposed on the reference file to determine the 3D surface, linear, and angular position discrepancies of each ISB. Repeated-measures analyses of variance followed by univariate analysis and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were performed to analyze the data (α=.05). To compare the mean time among groups, 1-way analysis of variance was performed followed by the Tukey post hoc tests.

RESULTS

Significant 3D surface, linear, and angular position discrepancies were found when measuring trueness among the NM, SM, and AM groups (P<.001). Discrepancies in 3D surface deviation were highest for the AM group (0.266 ±0.030 mm), and the lowest mean angular deviation values were for the SM group (0.993 ±0.062 degrees). However, the mean scanning time was not significantly different among the groups tested (P=.237).

CONCLUSIONS

For complete arch intraoral implant digital scans, subtractive modifications on ISBs enhanced scanning trueness, while additive modifications on ISBs decreased scanning trueness. However, implant scan body geometric modifications did not affect scanning time.

The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the inter-implant distance, inter-implant axis, and intra-implant axis of three implants in a straight line by using a laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS) with two different intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs).

METHODS

A 3D model was printed with internal hex implant analogs of three implants in positions 15#, 16#, and 17#. Two standard intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs) were used: MIS ISB (two-piece titanium) and Zirkonzhan ISB (two-piece titanium). Both ISBs were scanned using 7 Series dental wings (LBS) and 30 times using Primescan (IOS). For each scan, a stereolithography (STL) file was created and a comparison between all the scans was performed through superimposition of the STL files by using 3D analysis software (PolyWorks® 2020; InnovMetric, Québec, QC, Canada). A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed followed by a Mann-Whitney test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The change in inter-implant distance for the MIS ISB was significantly lower compared to the ZZ (p < 0.05). The change in intra-implant angle was significantly lower for the ZZ ISB compared to MIS (p < 0.05). The changes in inter-implant angle between the mesial and middle and between the middle and distal were significantly lower for MIS compared to ZZ in contrast to mesial to distal, which was significantly higher (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Both ISBs showed differences in all the parameters between the LBS and the IOS. The geometry of the scan abutment had an impact on the inter-implant distance as the changes in the inter-implant distance were significantly lower for the MIS ISB. The changes in the intra-implant angle were significantly lower for the ZZ ISB. There is a need for further research examining the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the trueness.

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.