Congruence between Meshes and Library Files of Implant Scanbodies: An In Vitro Study Comparing Five Intraoral Scanners

Dimensional Stability of Additively Manufactured Dentate Maxillary Diagnostic Casts in Biobased Model Resin

This study aimed to evaluate the dimensional stability of maxillary diagnostic casts fabricated from a biobased model resin, which consists of 50% renewable raw materials for sustainable production, a model resin, and stone, over one month. A master maxillary stone cast was digitized with a laboratory scanner to generate a reference file. This master cast was also scanned with an intraoral scanner to additively manufacture casts with a biobased model resin (BAM) and a model resin (AM). Polyvinylsiloxane impressions of the master cast were also made and poured in type III stone (CV) (n = 8). The same laboratory scanner was used to digitize each model one day (T0), 1 week (T1), 2 weeks (T2), 3 weeks (T3), and 4 weeks (T4) after fabrication. Deviations from the reference file were calculated with an analysis software and analyzed with generalized linear model analysis (α = 0.05). The interaction between the material and the time point affected measured deviations (p < 0.001). Regardless of the time point, CV had the lowest and AM had the highest deviations (p < 0.001). BAM mostly had lower deviations at T0 and mostly had higher deviations at T4 (p ≤ 0.011). AM had the highest deviations at T4 and then at T3, whereas it had the lowest deviations at T0 (p ≤ 0.002). The measured deviations of CV increased after each time point (p < 0.001). BAM casts had deviations within the previously reported clinically acceptable thresholds over one month and had acceptable dimensional stability. Therefore, tested biobased resin may be a viable alternative for the sustainable manufacturing of maxillary diagnostic casts that are to be used clinically.

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.

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

PURPOSE

To evaluate the influence of implant scan body (ISB) design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on the accuracy of digital implant scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A literature search was completed in five databases: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, World of Science, and Cochrane. A manual search was also conducted. Studies reporting the evaluation of ISB design on the accuracy of digital scans obtained by using IOSs were included. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus. Articles were classified based on the ISB features of height, geometry, material, and retention system.

RESULTS

Twenty articles were included. Among the reviewed studies, 11 investigations analyzed the influence of different ISB geometries, 1 study assessed the impact of ISB diameter, 4 studies investigated the effect of ISB splinting, 2 articles evaluated ISB height, and 2 studies focused on the effect of ISB material on scan accuracy. In addition, 8 studies involved ISBs fabricated with different materials (1- and 2-piece polyetheretherketone and 1-piece titanium ISBs), and all of the reviewed articles tested screw-retained ISBs, except for 3 in vitro studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings did not enable concrete conclusions regarding the optimal ISB design, whether there is a relationship between IOS technology and a specific ISB design, or the clinical condition that maximizes intraoral scanning accuracy. Research efforts are needed to identify the optimal ISB design and its possible relationship with the IOS selected for acquiring intraoral digital implant scans.

Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment scan body system scans at different sites of maxilla after multiple repositioning of the scan body

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of the scans of the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system located at different sites of the maxilla when SBs are replaced in between each scan.

METHODS

Three SBs were seated into HAs located at the central incisor, first premolar, and first molar sites of a maxillary model inside a phantom head, and the model was scanned extraorally (CEREC Primescan SW 5.2). This procedure was repeated with new SBs until a total of 10 scans were performed. Standard tessellation language files of CHA-SBs at each implant location were isolated, transferred into analysis software (Geomagic Control X), and superimposed over the proprietary library files to analyze surface (root mean square), linear, and angular deviations. Trueness and precision were evaluated with one-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests. The correlation between surface and angular deviations was analyzed with Pearson's correlation (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Molar implant scans had the highest surface and angular deviations (P≤.006), while central incisor implant scans had higher precision (surface deviations) than premolar implant scans (P=.041). Premolar implant scans had higher accuracy than central incisor implant scans on the y-axis (P≤.029). Central incisor implant scans had the highest accuracy on the z-axis (P≤.018). A strong positive correlation was observed between surface and angular deviations (r = 0.864, P<.001).

CONCLUSION

Central incisor implant scans mostly had high accuracy and molar implant scans mostly had lower trueness. SBs were mostly positioned apically; however, the effect of SB replacement can be considered small as measured deviations were similar to those in previous studies and the precision of scans was high.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Repositioning of scan bodies into healing abutments would be expected to result in similar single crown positioning regardless of the location of the implant, considering high scan precision with the healing abutment-scan body system. The duration of the chairside adjustments of crowns in the posterior maxilla may be longer than those in the anterior region.

Full-arch restoration with the NEXUS IOS® system: A retrospective clinical evaluation of 37 restorations after a one year of follow-up

OBJECTIVES

Report the results with a novel workflow of digital restoration for completely edentulous patients with implant supported full arch fixed dental prostheses (ISFDP).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective clinical study was based on the evaluation from a cohort of 29 patients restored with 37 ISFDP designed and manufactured from the data captured by a direct intraoral scan, using a novel full digital system (NEXUS IOS®, Osteon Medical, a Keystone Dental Group company, Melbourne, Australia). Data was collected over a 3-year period, in six different dental centers. This study reported on the clinical parameters including: precision of marginal fit, functional and aesthetic integration of Nexus ISFDP. All patients were followed for a period of one year post delivery. Implant survival, biologic and prosthetic complications were assessed, at one year. A statistical analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

All 37 ISFDP were deemed clinically acceptable on insertion. Implant survival at one year was 100 %. The biologic and prosthetic complications were minimal during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

ISFDP, designed and manufactured using the NEXUS IOS® system, are clinically acceptable, with a low incidence of complications at one year. Long-term clinical studies are needed.

STATEMENT OF CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Within the limitations of this study (retrospective design, small patient sample, limited follow-up) the NEXUS IOS® system seems to represent a viable solution for the restoration of completely edentulous patients with ISFDP, in a full digital workflow.

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.

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.

Feasibility of software-based assessment for automated evaluation of tooth preparation for dental crown by using a computational geometric algorithm

The purpose of this study was to propose the concept of software-based automated evaluation (SAE) of tooth preparation quality using computational geometric algorithms, and evaluate the feasibility of SAE in the assessment of abutment tooth preparation for single-unit anatomic contour crowns by comparing it with a human-based digitally assisted evaluation (DAE) by trained human evaluators. Thirty-five mandibular first molars were prepared for anatomical contour crown restoration by graduate students. Each prepared tooth was digitized and evaluated in terms of occlusal reduction and total occlusal convergence using SAE and DAE. Intra-rater agreement for the scores graded by the SAE and DAE and inter-rater agreement between the SAE and DAE were analyzed with the significance level (α) of 0.05. The evaluation using the SAE protocol demonstrated perfect intra-rater agreement, whereas the evaluation using the DAE protocol showed moderate-to-good intra-rater agreement. The evaluation values of the SAE and DAE protocols showed almost perfect inter-rater agreement. The SAE developed for tooth preparation evaluation can be used for dental education and clinical skill feedback. SAE may minimize possible errors in the conventional rating and provide more reliable and precise assessments than the human-based DAE.

Effect of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technique on the accuracy of fixed partial denture patterns used for casting or pressing

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of additive and subtractive manufacturing on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of fixed partial denture patterns (FPDPs) used for casting or pressing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A 3-unit complete coverage FPD on mandibular right first premolar and first molar teeth was virtually designed. Using the design data, FPD patterns were fabricated from an additively manufactured resin (PR, ProArt Print Wax) and 2 CAD-CAM wax discs (YW, ProArt CAD Wax Yellow and BW, ProArt CAD Wax Blue) (n = 10). Each pattern was then digitized with a scanner (CEREC Primescan) and evaluated for 3D surface deviation at 4 different surfaces (overall, external, marginal, and intaglio surfaces) by using a 3D analysis software (Medit Link). Root mean square (RMS) values were automatically calculated. Data were analyzed by using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's post hoc tests for trueness and precision (α= 0.05).

RESULTS

Significant differences were found among the RMS values for overall (P<.001) and each surface (P≤.040) evaluated. PR had the highest overall (P≤.011) and intaglio surface (P≤.01) deviations, while the difference between YW and BW was not significant (P≥.199). PR had the highest (P≤.027) and BW had the lowest (P≤.042) external surface mean RMS values. BW had higher mean marginal RMS value than YW (P=.047). For precision, significant differences were observed among test groups only for marginal RMS values (P=.002). PR had lower precision than BW (P=.002).

CONCLUSIONS

BW and YW FPDPs mostly had higher trueness compared with PR FPDPs. However, considering relatively smaller deviations at marginal and intaglio surfaces and the fact that patterns mostly had similar precision, clinical fit of FPDs fabricated by using tested patterns may be similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Definitive 3-unit fixed partial dentures fabricated by using tested patterns may be similar. However, FPDs fabricated with tested additively manufactured resin patterns might result in more chairside adjustments than those fabricated with tested subtractively manufactured wax patterns.

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.

Retentive design of a small surgical guide for implant surgery: An in-vitro study

OBJECTIVES

Instability of the surgical guide is an overlooked factor that can result in a difference between the planned and the actual positions of an implant. Our aim was to compare the stability of the retentive surgical guide (RSG) with a conventional surgical guide (CSG) in an in-vitro experiment.

METHODS

A platform to evaluate the stability of the surgical guide was designed using 3D-modelling software (Meshmixer 3.5, Autodesk). Imaging data from 15 patients with a single missing tooth were used to plan the virtual implant. Two surgical guides were designed (Blue Sky Plan 4.8, Blue Sky Bio) and 3D printed (Form2, Dental SG resin, Formlabs) for each case: the CSG with the default, predetermined software settings, and the RSG, designed on a dental model with a 0.1-mm undercut and altered production parameters (reduced guide-to-teeth offset of 0.07 mm, reduced guide thickness of 2.3 mm and a retentive clasp in a marginal area). The dental models were reproducibly secured on the testing platform using a digital force gauge, and the surgical guides were positioned. An increasing force of 0.1 N, 1 N, 2.5 N, and 5 N was sequentially applied from the buccal and the oral directions to the surgical guide via a drill handle. For each force, either the magnitude of the guide's displacement was captured with an intra-oral scanner (CEREC Omnicam AC, Dentsply Sirona; software version: SW 4.5.2) or the dislodgement of the guide was recorded. Scans were imported for analysis (GOM Inspect 2018, GOM GmbH), and library files of the surgical guides and implants were superimposed as a joined complex. The deviation of the implant's position was calculated from the displacement of the guide's position RESULTS: Three-way repeated measures using ANOVA revealed a more significant guide displacement and virtually projected implant deviation in the CSG group than the RSG group and with increasing force in all the deviation parameters. Both groups showed greater resistance to the displacement with the force applied from the oral direction than the buccal direction. The application of the force in the buccal direction resulted in guide dislodgements of 13% and 0% for the CSG and RSG, respectively. In the oral direction, the dislodgement rates were 33% and 7% for the CSG and RSG, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, the retentive design increased the stability of the surgical guide and, consequently, the accuracy of the virtually projected implants in comparison to the conventional surgical guide designed using the default settings. Clinical trials are needed to confirm its advantages in clinical use.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

With a simple modification to the design, the surgical guide retention provided greater stability, with smaller deviations under loading; this resulted in improved implant precision parameters without requiring additional materials or software. Further studies are needed to assess the clinical feasibility of this surgical guide with improved retention and function.

Digital workflow in implant prosthodontics: The critical aspects for reliable accuracy

INTRODUCTION

This paper is a comprehensive treaty about the variables that influence the transfer of the position of an implant to the laboratory when using a digital workflow.

OBJECTIVE

The aim is to provide operators and manufacturers with a guide on how to improve certain aspects of the digital workflow specific to the fabrication of implant-supported restorations.

OVERVIEW

It addresses intraoral scanning issues and CAD software issues. In the former, the variables that play a part in the quality of the scan file are investigated: the implant scan body, the IOS and the operator. For the latter, instead, the focus is on those aspects that still today may create inaccuracies in the workflow and in the final product being fabricated: the identification of the specific implant placed in the patient and the generation of a virtual model with the representation of that implant platform correctly positioned in the three dimensions of space. Suggestions and recommendations are given to improve the control on the quality of the digital workflow's output.

CONCLUSION

In a digital workflow for the fabrication of an implant-supported restoration, the selection and use of the implant scan body, the use of an effective scan strategy and the appropriateness of the best fit function in the CAD software, that is, the procedure of superimposing the library of geometric shapes of the ISB linked to the implant with the shape acquired intraorally, are variables that can influence the positional precision of the FDP.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Fully understanding the importance of the information enclosed in the ISBs themselves can be crucial in the digital workflow. A proper ISB's selection, a correct scan of the ISB's shape and an accurate CAD superimposition of the ISB's library can lead the clinician to reduce the variables that affect the final result in daily practice.

Accuracy of digital impressions for three-unit and four-unit implant supported fixed dental prostheses using a novel device

Background/ purpose

Accuracy of digital implant impressions was considered questionable due to the lack of anatomical reference points between implants and the similarities in scan body morphology, which lead to the purpose of this research is to propose a simple and convenient technique to improve the accuracy of scanning.

Materials and methods

Four implant analogues (teeth: 15, 17, 24, and 27) were inserted into a stone model of a partially edentulous maxilla; two implants were inserted on each side, creating a three-unit span and a four-unit span. The model was scanned using a 3Shape E4 dental laboratory scanner for reference and a TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner for testing. Each side was scanned 10 times, both with and without the novel device attached to the scan bodies. The trueness and precision of interimplant distances (linear deviations), and interimplant angulations (angle deviations) between the scan bodies were determined using software. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine statistical differences between subgroups.

Results

Significant differences were discovered in the trueness of angular deviations (-0.20° ± 0.15° vs. -0.01° ± 0.11º) and precision of linear deviations (11.14 ± 6.35 vs. 3.10 ± 2.14 μm) for the four-unit groups.

Conclusion

The novel device significantly improved scanning accuracy for a four-unit groups (approximately 22.93 mm) compared to three-unit groups.

In Vivo Analysis of Intraoral Scanner Precision Using Open-Source 3D Software

Intraoral three-dimensional scanning techniques could be used to improve dental practice, leading to an improved overall quality of the prosthetic devices and improved comfort for the patient. An accurate and precise intraoral scanner allows proper diagnosis, follow-up evaluation, and prosthesis application. The aim of this research is to evaluate the precision of an intraoral scanners (Medit i500, Medit Corp., Seoul, Korea), using open-source software in the digital workflow. The precision was compared through repetitions of the scanning process of the upper dental arch, following superimpositions in the whole 3D arch area. It was possible to display colorimetric maps for qualitative comparison, and the deviations of the values were classified as clinically acceptable. Within the limitation of this study, the clinically acceptable in vivo frequency of points’ deviation, or the precision, was obtained in 98.8% ± 1.4%; therefore, the use of open-source software can be a viable option in the digital workflow, improving patient follow ups with the 3D model superimposition.

Additive or subtractive manufacturing of crown patterns used for pressing or casting: A trueness analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of subtractive and additive manufacturing techniques on the trueness of crown patterns used for pressing or casting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A complete-coverage mandibular right first molar crown was designed in standard tessellation language (STL) format. This STL served as the control (C-STL) and was used to fabricate 30 crown patterns in 3D-printed resin (PR, ProArt Print Wax), millable wax suitable for casting (BW, ProArt CAD Wax Blue), and millable wax suitable for pressing (YW, ProArt CAD Wax Yellow) (n = 10). Subtractively manufactured patterns were fabricated by using a 5-axis milling unit (PrograMill PM7), while 3D-printed patterns were fabricated by using a digital light processing-based 3D printer (PrograPrint PR5; Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). All fabricated patterns were digitized by using an intraoral scanner (CEREC Primescan SW 5.2) to generate test-STLs. C-STL and test-STLs were transferred into a 3D analysis software (Medit Link v 2.4.4). Trueness evaluation was performed at 4 different surfaces (external, intaglio with margin, marginal, and intaglio without margin) and for complete scan meshes (overall) by using the root mean square (RMS) method. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = .05).

RESULTS

RMS values varied significantly at all surfaces (P < .001), except for marginal surface (P = .151). PR had the highest RMS values at external surface (P ≤ .007), intaglio surfaces (with (P ≤ .003) and without margin (P ≤ .005)), and overall (P ≤ .01). No significant differences were observed between YW and BW (P ≥ .223).

CONCLUSION

Patterns fabricated by using subtractive manufacturing exhibited high trueness. The deviation values, in general, were small, particularly at intaglio and marginal surfaces; thus, clinical difference in crown-fit may be negligible using additive or subtractive technique.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The fit of definitive crowns may be similar when tested crown patterns are additively or subtractively manufactured. However, crowns fabricated by using tested 3D-printed resin patterns may require more chairside adjustments compared with those fabricated by using subtractively manufactured wax patterns.

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.

Does the geometry of scan bodies affect the alignment accuracy of computer-aided design in implant digital workflow: an in vitro study?

OBJECTIVES

To compare 2 implant scan bodies with different geometry on the accuracy of the virtual alignment process in the digital workflow.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A master model of the edentulous maxilla with 6 implants and multi-unit abutments (MUA) inserted was fabricated. Six dome-shaped and cuboidal scan bodies were mounted on the MUAs respectively and consecutively scanned by a laboratory scanner 10 times. The original scans were imported to a dental-specific CAD software and virtually aligned with the default CAD model in the implant library. Thus, 10 aligned models were created. Both the original scans and the aligned models were evaluated by an inspection software for deviation of the scan body surfaces, the centroids of scan body and MUA, the scan body centre-axis and the inter-MUA distances/angles. The two-sample T-test/Mann Whitney U test were used to analyse the data with the level of significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The cuboidal group showed significant greater deviations of the model surface (13.9 µm vs 10.7 µm) and the MUA centroids (31.7µm vs 22.8 µm) but smaller deviation of the inter-MUA angle (0.047° vs 0.070°) than those of the dome-shaped group (P<0.05). No significant differences in the deviation of scan body centroids, centre-axis and the inter-MUA distances between the 2 groups were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Virtual alignment of implant scan body affected the accuracy of the digital workflow for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses (up to ~30 µm/0.09°). Different geometries of the implant scan body could also influence the transfer accuracy in the CAD process.

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.

Comparison of the virtual techniques in registering single implant position with a universal-coordinate system: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this in-vitro study was to compare the virtual techniques for registering single-implant position to the physical gold standard using a universal-coordinate system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty dentate maxillary resin models with a dental implant inserted in the incisor region were prepared. On each model, a tooth-supported acrylic stent with a 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm cubic-corner (CC) was prepared. The Cartesian x,y,z-coordinate of the implant neck and apex were measured physically by a coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) with reference to this CC and served as the gold-standard. The resin models were scanned by a benchtop scanner (Group BS), cone-beam computed tomography (Group CBCT), and intraoral scanner (Group IOS). Stone casts, poured from open-tray polyether impression of the resin models, were scanned by the benchtop scanner (Group BS-cast). The implant neck and apex coordinates with reference to the CC were measured and the differences in the coordinates (∆x, ∆y, ∆z) and distance r from the gold standard were calculated. The data were analyzed by one-sample t-test and one-way ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis test with the level of significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The implant neck and apex positions of Group BS were statistically different from that of the CMM, r>0 (p<0.001). Group IOS showed a significant less ∆z and r at the implant neck than Group BS-cast (p = 0.006). No significant difference was found in the coordinates and distance at implant apex among Groups BS, CBCT, IOS and BS-cast.

CONCLUSIONS

The physical measurements could be adopted as the gold standard in assessing the single-implant positions. The IOS was more accurate in registering the single-implant neck positions than scanning of the cast.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A universal-coordinate system defined by the cubic-corner allows comparing the virtual techniques in registering single-implant positions to the physical gold standard.

Influence of 3D analysis software on measured deviations of CAD-CAM resin crowns from virtual design file: an in-vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a nonmetrology-grade and a metrology-grade 3D analysis software when measuring the deviations of CAD-CAM fabricated crowns from the virtual design file.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A right first molar on a mandibular dentate model was prepared and scanned by using an intraoral scanner, i500 (Medit). A complete coverage crown was designed in standard tessellation language format and 20 resin crowns were fabricated by using computer aided design-computer aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM). The crowns were then digitized by using the same intraoral scanner (test-scans). Root mean square (RMS) method was used to evaluate the deviations between the test-scans and the design file of the crowns on 3 surfaces (overall, external, and internal) by using a metrology-grade, Geomagic Control X (3D Systems) and a nonmetrology-grade, Medit Link (Medit) software. The data were analyzed with Welch two-sample t-tests to compare two software for the non-inferiority of the nonmetrology-grade software with a 50 µm threshold and the potential superiority of the metrology-grade software (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The Welch two-sample t-tests for the non-inferiority analysis showed that the differences between the nonmetrology-grade and the metrology-grade software were below the threshold of 50 µm for each surface tested (p <.001). The differences between the two-tested software were nonsignificant for each surface analyzed when superiority was considered (p ≥.194).

CONCLUSION

The nonmetrology-grade software performed similar to the metrology-grade software when analyzing the deviations of CAD-CAM crowns. Therefore, the nonmetrology-grade 3D analysis software may be considered for the deviation measurements of similar restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The trueness of crowns after fabrication may affect their fit, and 3D analysis of trueness prior to the delivery appointment with the tested nonmetrology-grade software after fabrication may facilitate potential clinical adjustments and delivery of the crowns.

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.

Trueness and marginal fit of implant-supported complete-arch fixed prosthesis frameworks made of high-performance polymers and titanium: An explorative in-vitro study

PURPOSE

To investigate the trueness and marginal fit of computer-aided design-computer-aided manufactured (CAD-CAM) complete-arch implant-supported screw-retained fixed prosthesis (CAISFP) made of polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK) and titanium (Ti) MATERIAL AND METHODS: A typodont model with four implants, their multiunit abutments (MUAs), and MUA scanbodies were digitized by using a laboratory scanner. The generated CAD was used to mill CAISFP frameworks in Ti, PEEK, or PEKK (each n = 10). The frameworks were digitized with an industrial light scanner to superimpose resulting standard tessellation language (STL) file with the CAD file. Deviations at five points at the abutment-framework interface of each of the four abutment sites (1:left first molar, 2:left canine, 3:right canine, 4:right first molar sites) were calculated (trueness). Marginal gaps were measured using the triple scan technique. A nonparametric repeated measures ANOVA by Brunner and Puri with factors being abutment location and material was performed to assess the mean deviations for trueness and mean marginal gaps, followed by Mann-Whitney or exact Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests (alpha=.05).

RESULTS

Material type significantly affected the trueness (p<0.0001). PEEK had the lowest deviations (0.039 +/-0.01mm) followed by PEKK (0,049 +/-0.009mm), and Ti (0.074 +/-0.011mm). For marginal gaps, only abutment location's effect was significant (p = 0.003). Within PEKK, gaps at abutment 4 were significantly larger, compared with abutments 2 (p = 0.04) and 3 (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The trueness of PEEK, PEKK, and Ti frameworks was different after milled. PEEK had the highest trueness. However, the marginal fit of the frameworks was similar and smaller than 90 µm in average.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

PEEK, PEKK, and Ti complete-arch frameworks had clinically acceptable gaps and may therefore be recommended when their fit is considered. Higher trueness after milling did not result in better marginal fit.

Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: AAn in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system using different intraoral scanners.

METHODS

A partially edentulous model with an implant was fabricated, and a CHA-SB system was secured on the implant. The model was scanned using an industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80) and a master reference model was generated (MRM). The model was also scanned with 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [(Virtuo Vivo (VV), TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (CO), and Primescan (PS)]. Test scans (n = 8) were superimposed over the MRM using the best fit algorithm (GOM Inspect 2018; GOM GmbH). After superimpositions, distance and angular deviations at selected areas on CHA-SB system were calculated. The data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests for trueness and precision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The differences in trueness (distance deviations) among tested IOSs were nonsignificant (P=.652). VV presented the highest angular deviations (P ≤.031), and the angular deviations in other IOS scans were not found different (P ≥.378). The precision of distance deviation data was not significantly different among scanners (P=.052). For the precision of angular deviation data, significant differences were found among IOSs (P=.002). Compared with PS (P=.007) and T3 (P=.014), VV had significantly lower precision, which was not significantly different than that of CO (P=.815).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy (angular deviation) of scans of a combined healing abutment-scan body system on a single implant varied depending on the IOS. VirtuoVivo scans had the lowest accuracy in terms of angular deviations. When the distance deviation data were considered, scan accuracy of scanners was similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A recently introduced combined healing abutment-scan body system combines the acquisition of both the implant and the soft tissue. When different intraoral scanners scan the combined healing abutment-scan body system, the scan accuracy may vary.

The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions and intraoral scans when a healing abutment-scanpeg system (HASP) or a conventional scanbody (CSB) was used on a single implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary model with an implant (4.0 × 11 mm) (Neoss) and a CSB or an HASP (Neoss) was scanned by using a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600; Amann Girrbach) (reference scans) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 3) (n = 10). PVS open-tray impressions were also made and stone casts of the model with a CSB were digitized with the laboratory scanner. Intraoral scanner and cast scans were superimposed to their reference scans. On superimposed scans, points were selected on HASP and CSB to calculate distance deviations (at points 1-4) and angular deviations (at points 5 and 6 on CSB and PVS, and 5-8 on HASP) between scans (trueness), and their variation (precision). The deviation data was analyzed with ANOVA and pairwise comparisons (trueness) with Tukey's adjustment, and F-tests (precision).

RESULTS

At point 1, PVS had lower trueness than CSB (difference in means (DIMs) = 0.184 mm, p = 0.006) and HASP (DIMs = 0.122 mm, p = 0.042). At point 3, CSB had higher trueness than HASP (DIMs = 0.134 mm, p = 0.001). Angular deviations with PVS were higher than with CSB (DIMs = 0.6°, p = 0.013) and HASP (DIMs = 0.7°, p = 0.005). CSB had higher precision than PVS (p < 0.05). HASP had higher precision than PVS for distance (Point 1)(p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p < 0.05). Deviation differences within the HASP parts were not significant.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of intraoral scans and PVS impressions of an implant was similar.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The combined healing abutment-scanpeg system and the conventional scanbody can be recommended for scans of anterior single implants with the intraoral scanner used.

Analysis of The Reproducibility of Subgingival Vertical Margins Using Intraoral Optical Scanning (IOS): A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial

Background: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the capability of an IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) device, used in standardized conditions, to detect margins of abutments prepared with knife-edge finishing line located at three different levels in relation to the gingival sulcus. Methods: sixty abutment teeth for treatment with full crowns were selected and randomly divided in three groups accordingly to the depth of the finishing line: Group A: supragingival margin; Group B: 0.5–1.0 mm into the sulcus; Group C: 1.5–2.0 mm into the sulcus. Temporary crowns were placed for two weeks and then digital impressions (Aadva IOS 100, GC, Japan) were made of each abutment. As controls, analog impressions were taken, poured, and scanned using a laboratory scanner (Aadva lab scanner, GC, Japan). Two standard tessellation language (STL) files were generated for each abutment, subsequently processed, and superimposed by Exocad software (Exocad GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany), applying the “best-fit“ algorithm in order to align the scan of the conventional with the digital impressions. The distances between each preparation margin and the adjacent gingival tissue were measured. Four measures were taken, two interproximally and buccally, for a total of six measures of each abutment considering three modes of impressions. The data were statistically evaluated using two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each site and the Bonferroni test. Results: there was no difference between the two kinds of impression in Group A in both sites, in Group B a difference of 0.483 mm and 0.682 mm at interproximal and buccal sites, respectively, and in Group C 0.750 mm and 0.964 mm at interproximal and buccal sites, respectively. The analysis performed on a site level (mesial/distal/vestibular) for the depth of both vertical preparations revealed significant differences (p < 0.0001). After a post hoc analysis (Bonferroni), vestibular sites of the shallow vertical preparations resulted in significantly lower values compared to the other sites prepared deeply. Conclusions: the results showed that the location of the margin is an important factor in making a precise and complete impression when IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) is used. Moreover, deep preparation into the sulcus is not recommended for IOS (Intra Oral Scanner) impressions.

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.

Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: in vitro trueness evaluation

Objectives

To assess the trueness of a solid index (SI) in the full-arch (FA) implant impression, and to compare it with that of two intraoral scanners (IOSs). A type-IV gypsum model of a completely edentulous patient with 8 implant scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (7Series®) to obtain a reference virtual model (RVM), and with two IOSs (CS 3700® and Emerald S®). Five scans were taken with each IOS. Based on the RVM, an SI (custom tray consisting of hollow cylinders connected by a bar) was fabricated and used to capture a physical impression of the model; from this, a second gypsum model was derived and scanned with a desktop scanner (D15®). The SI-derived and the IOSs-derived models were superimposed onto the RVM, to evaluate trueness.

Results

The overall mean trueness was 29 μm (± 26) for the SI-derived model, versus 42.4 μm (± 14.7) for CS 3700® and 52.2 μm (± 4.6) for Emerald S®. Despite its limitations (in vitro design, a limited number of models evaluated, RVM captured with a desktop scanner) this study supports the use of SI for FA implant impressions. Further studies are needed to confirm this evidence.

Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

BACKGROUND

The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression.

METHODS

A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed.

RESULTS

With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.