The effect of the improperly scanned scan body images on the accuracy of virtual implant positioning in computer-aided design software

Could various angulated implant depths affect the positional accuracy of digital impressions? An in vitro study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess how implant depth could affect the three-dimensional positional accuracy of digital impressions made from angulated implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four modified maxillary models were printed and divided into four study groups. In each model, two angulated implant analogs were placed at the sites of the first premolar and first molar at four different depths of 1 (G1), 2 (G2), 3 (G3), and 4 (G4) mm from the models' edentate area. Scan bodies were connected to the analogs, and one operator made 10 full-arch scans for each master model using an intraoral scanner. Afterward, the marginal gingival part of all models was removed, and digital scans were performed for each model using a laboratory scanner to achieve a reference STL file as the control group. One-way ANOVA and Leven's tests were used to measure and compare the 3D distance deviations across research groups after the superimposing test and control scans.

RESULTS

A significant difference between research groups was revealed by trueness and precision analysis (p < 0.001). The trueness and precision results obtained for G1 and G4 were significantly better than those for G2 and G3 (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that implant depth could affect the digital implant impressions' 3D positional accuracy.

Effect of cut-out rescanning protocol on the accuracy of digital impressions in convergent implants positioned at varying depths: An in vitro study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the effect of the "cut-out rescan" strategy on the accuracy of intraoral digital scans from 25° convergent implants positioned at two distinct depths.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two customized models were fabricated, each designated to receive two posterior converged implant fixtures: one at a depth of 1 mm and the other at a depth of 4 mm. Initially, the models were scanned as reference casts using a lab scanner. The test group was involved in scanning the 1-mm and 4-mm implant models using an intraoral scanner in the following order: (1) scanning the 1-mm (T1; n = 10) and (2) 4-mm (T4; n = 10) implant groups with scan bodies connected to both fixtures in each model; (3) cut-out rescan (COR) in the 1-mm (COR1; n = 10) and (4) 4-mm (COR4; n = 10) models, leading to 40 digital files in standard tessellation language format. The mean absolute deviation (MAD), in terms of trueness and precision, between the experimental and control scans was assessed through the alignment of their respective datasets using three-dimensional analysis software. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Levene's tests were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The COR4 group exhibited the highest MAD, indicative of both trueness and precision (Mean ±SD: 55.659 ±34.802). In contrast, the T1 group demonstrated the lowest MAD (Mean ±SD: 43.225 ±19.237). However, the ANOVA analysis showed no significant influence of depth (P = 0.506) or type of scan (P = 0.442) on the MAD. Precision also did not differ significantly across groups (P = 0.071).

CONCLUSIONS

The cut-out rescan approach demonstrated an accuracy comparable to that of the one-time scan method.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Digital intraoral scanning provides clinicians with a range of tools to navigate challenging conditions in which conventional methods may prove difficult, such as cases involving angled adjacent implants. In these scenarios, the cut-out rescan tool serves as a valuable resource, aiding clinicians in overcoming the challenges associated with impression-making owing to the convergence of placed implants.

Influence of different scan body design features and intraoral scanners on the congruence between scan body meshes and library files: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Implant scan bodies (ISBs) present with a variety of features, including diverse design geometries and manufacturing materials. How these features influence the congruence between the clinically obtained mesh file and the software-based library file of the scan body during the alignment stage within the computer-aided design (CAD) software program is unclear. It is also uncertain how these features influence the scanning accuracy of different scanners.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate how various scan body shapes manufactured from different materials influence the scanning accuracy of 6 intraoral scanners (IOSs) and 1 desktop scanner.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A 3-dimensionally (3D) printed cast fitted with 4 different implant analogs and their corresponding scan bodies (Straumann Cares RN Mono; Straumann, MIS V3 SP; MIS, Paltop SP; Paltop and TV70; TRI) was scanned using 6 intraoral scanners (Primescan; Dentsply Sirona, TRIOS 3; 3Shape A/S, TRIOS 5; 3Shape A/S, Medit i-700; Medit, Fussen S6000; Fussen, and Runyes 3DS; Runyes) and 1 desktop scanner (7series; Dental Wings). A metrology mesh comparison software program was used for analysis. Inferences were drawn using a univariate repeated measures 2-way ANOVA. Post hoc analysis was conducted with pairwise Bonferroni tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

A significant 2-way interaction was found between scanner model and scan body model, (F [5.518, 49.659]=36.251, P<.001). The mean absolute deviation for the different scanners ranged between 21 µm and 35 µm across all scan bodies, but the model of the scan body influenced the deviation of the scanner. The mean absolute deviation for the different scan bodies ranged from 19 µm to 46 µm across all scanners, but the model of the scanner influenced the deviation of the scan body.

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding implant scan body features, a design with a less complex shape and fewer sharp line angles and a design with a cylindrical shape exhibited statistically significantly higher congruence between the clinical mesh and the software library files. Regarding intraoral scanners, Primescan had a statistically significantly lower mean absolute deviation compared with that of the other scanners across all scan bodies tested.

Enhancing scanning accuracy of digital implant scans: A systematic review on application methods of scan bodies

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Scan bodies play a crucial role in the accuracy of digital implant scans by serving as implant-positioning transfer devices. Previous literature has demonstrated the effects of scan body characteristics on the accuracy of digital implant scans. However, the optimal application methods of scan bodies to enhance scanning accuracy remain unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the optimal application methods of scan bodies to enhance the accuracy of digital implant scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted by using the PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases from November 2018 to 2023. Relevant references from the included studies were further screened manually for eligibility. Following the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) criteria, a research question focused on identifying the optimal application method for effectively using scan bodies to enhance scanning accuracy was developed. Specific inclusion criteria involved in vitro and in vivo studies. The Checklist for Reporting In Vitro Studies (CRIS) guidelines were followed and the assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies was conducted.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in this systematic review. Two studies investigated the effect of scan body bevel orientation on the accuracy of digital implant scans, and 3 examined the impact of tightening torque on scan bodies. Among the studies focusing on completely edentulous arches, 5 recommended the use of auxiliary geometric devices on the dental arch to enhance scanning accuracy. However, 2 studies reported no improvements in accuracy after splinting scan bodies with thread.

CONCLUSIONS

Different techniques for applying scan bodies, such as configuring bevel orientation, adjusting tightening torque, and attaching auxiliary geometric devices, influence the accuracy of digital implant scans. For scanning completely edentulous arches, attaching auxiliary devices to scan bodies to cover the edentulous ridge effectively enhances scanning accuracy.

Effect of 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.

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.

Characteristics of intraoral scan bodies and their influence on impression accuracy: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the characteristics of intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy of intraoral scanning.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library, up to March 2023. The literature search intended to retrieve all relevant clinical and in vitro studies about the effect that the various properties of ISBs may have on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanning. Only publications in English language were selected with animal studies, case reports, case series, technique presentation articles and expert opinions being excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. They were published between 2019 and 2023 and were all in vitro studies. Among the parameters described, the scan body material, position, geometry, height, diameter, and fixation torque were evaluated. The most common materials used for ISBs were polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium alloys. The diameter and position of ISBs seemed to affect the trueness of implant impressions. Subgingival implant position and decreased ISB height affected negatively the trueness of scanning. Geometrical characteristics of ISBs also affect the implant impression accuracy, especially the bevel location and the types of designing modifications.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of the currently used ISBs vary widely and the available scientific evidence is not yet conclusive about the optimal design of ISB. The implant impression accuracy achieved by any of the studied parameters is encouraging. Clinical studies are however necessary for more concrete conclusions.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

ISBs play a vital role in the digital workflow and influence significantly the accuracy and fit of implant restorations. More clinical trials are needed in order to conclude to the optimal characteristics of ISBs which would further enhance the success of the restorations.

A novel post-processing strategy to improve the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scanning for implants: an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To develop a new post-processing strategy that utilizes an auxiliary device to adjust intraoral scans and improve the accuracy of 3D models of complete-arch dental implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous resin model with 6 dental implants was prepared. An auxiliary device, consisting of an opaque base and artificial landmarks, was fabricated and mounted onto the resin model. Twenty intraoral scans (raw scans) were taken using this setup. A new post-processing strategy was proposed to adjust the raw scans using reverse engineering software (verified group). Additionally, ten conventional gypsum casts were duplicated and digitized using a laboratory scanner. The linear and angular trueness and precision of the models were evaluated and compared. The effect of the proposed strategy on the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans was analyzed using one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

The linear trueness (29.7 µm) and precision (24.8 µm) of the verified group were significantly better than the raw scans (46.6 µm, 44.7 µm) and conventional casts (51.3 µm, 36.5 µm), particularly in cross-arch sites. However, the angular trueness (0.114°) and precision (0.085°) of the conventional casts were significantly better than both the verified models (0.298°, 0.168°) and the raw scans (0.288°, 0.202°).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel post-processing strategy is effective in enhancing the linear accuracy of complete-arch implant IO scans, especially in cross-arch sites. However, further improvement is needed to eliminate the angular deviations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Errors generated from intraoral scanning in complete edentulous arches exceed the clinical threshold. The elimination of stitching errors in the raw scans particularly in the cross-arch sites, through the proposed post-processing strategy would enhance the accuracy of complete-arch implant prostheses.

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.

Optimizing digital implant impressions: Evaluating the significance of scan body image deficiency and alignment under varied scan body exposures

In implant dentistry, the advent of intraoral scanning technology has revolutionized traditional clinical processes by streamlining procedures and ensuring predictable treatment outcomes. However, achieving accurate virtual implant positions using intraoral scanners and scan bodies can be influenced by various clinical and laboratory factors. This study aims to investigate the impact of scan body image capture deficiency and scan body alignment methods in computer-aided design (CAD) software on the accuracy of virtual implant positions, particularly in different implant depths. Three stereolithographic half-arch implant models with different implant depths were prepared, representing three scenarios of scan body exposure: full exposed scan body, 2/3 exposed scan body, and 1/3 exposed scan body. The scan body image capture deficiency and alignment methods were simulated using CAD software. The deviation of virtual implant positions obtained from different scenarios were evaluated using 3D analysis software. The highest angular and linear deviation (0.237±0.059 degrees, 0.084±0.068 mm) were found in the 1/4 upper and lower part scan body deficiency using the 1-point alignment method in the 1/3 exposed scan body. Two-way ANOVA analysis revealed significant effects of scan deficiency on virtual implant position deviations across all scan body exposures, except for the linear deviation when the scan body was exposed 2/3 of its length. Furthermore, scan deficiencies in the 1/4 upper and lower parts of the scan body significantly affected implant angular deviation regardless of scan body exposure, while implant linear deviation was specifically affected when the scan body was exposed to only 1/3 of its total length. Deficiencies in scan body acquisition, particularly in deep soft tissue situations, can lead to deviations in both angular and linear positioning of virtual implants. Employing appropriate scan body alignment methods such as a 3-point alignment approach demonstrates better accuracy compared to a 1-point alignment.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

The cumulative effect of error in the digital workflow for complete-arch implant-supported frameworks: an in vitro study

PURPOSE

To investigate the error accumulation and distribution through various stages of the digital workflow for complete-arch implant-supported framework fabrication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A resin model of edentulous maxilla with 6 dental implants was scanned using an intraoral scanner for 10 times (Complete-digital group). Ten conventional gypsum casts were made and digitized by a laboratory scanner (Analogue-digital group). Five implant frameworks were designed and milled using CAD-CAM technique for each workflow. Inter-implant distances and angles of the resin model (reference) and frameworks were measured by a coordinate measuring machine, while the scans and virtual frameworks were examined by an inspection software. Effect of type of workflow and the individual stage on the accuracy of the frameworks were analysed by Two-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

The expanded uncertainty of both workflows was ~150 μm and ~0.8°. The accuracy of the CAD stage was the highest. In the complete-digital workflow, the greatest distortion was found in the data acquisition stage, while in the analogue-digital workflow, it was found in the CAM stage. Compared to the analogue-digital group, the complete-digital group showed a significant higher precision in first-quadrant but lower trueness in second-quadrant in data acquisition, and a significantly lower precision in second-quadrant at the CAD stage.

CONCLUSIONS

Linear distortions of the complete-digital and analogue-digital workflows were clinically acceptable, while angular distortions were not. Distortions were generally derived from data acquisition and CAM stage. The CAD precision depended on the distortions derived from data acquisition. The complete-digital workflow was not as accurate as the analogue-digital in complete-arch implant rehabilitation.

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

Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the implant axis’ spatial position and orientation by using laboratory scanner versus intra-oral scanner with three different scan abutments. Methods: A 3D model was printed with an internal hex implant analog in the place of teeth 35#. Three standard scan abutments were used: MIS (two-piece titanium), AB (two-piece PEEK and titanium base) and ZZ (one-piece PEEK). Each scan abutment was scanned 30 times by TRIOS E3 (laboratory scanner) and 30 times by Omnicam (intra-oral scanner). For each scan, an STL (stereolithography) file was created, and the spatial characterization of each scan abutment was measured in the X, Y, Z coordinates, and rotational and longitudinal angles. The comparison between all the scans was conducted by superimposition of the STL files, using a 3D software. A t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used. (p < 0.05) Results: Only the MIS scan abutment showed no statistical difference in the X and Z axes. (p < 0.05). All other scan abutments showed a statistical difference in all axes. The rotational angle of the AB scan abutment was twice the angle of the MIS and ZZ scan abutments. Conclusions: All three scan abutments showed a rotational deviation of the implant axis between the laboratory scanner and the intra-oral scanner. The AB scan abutment showed the greatest deviation (1.04 degrees) while the other two abutments showed deviations of about half a degree in relation to the laboratory scan abutment. There is a need for further studies which will examine the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the accuracy of the scan obtained.

Evaluation of the Trueness of Digital Implant Impressions According to the Implant Scan Body Orientation and Scanning Method

This study investigated the trueness of a digital implant impression according to the orientation of the implant scan body (ISB) and the scanning method. With the flat surface of the ISB facing either the buccal or proximal direction, the ISB was scanned using one tabletop scanner (T500) and three types of intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, CS3600, and i500). The effects of differences in the scanning method and ISB orientation were assessed. Postalignment data were subsequently obtained with the abutments generated using a digital library, and superimposed with reference data using a best-fit algorithm, followed by root-mean-square error (RMSE) analysis. The RMSE was lower in the buccal groups (28.15 ± 8.87 μm, mean ± SD) than in the proximal groups (31.94 ± 8.95 μm, p = 0.031), and lower in the full-scan groups (27.92 ± 10.80 μm) than in the partial-scan groups (32.16 ± 6.35 μm, p = 0.016). When using the tabletop scanner, the trueness was higher when the ISB was connected buccally (14.34 ± 0.89 μm) than when it was connected proximally (29.35 ± 1.15 μm, p < 0.001). From the findings of this study it can be concluded that the operator should connect the ISB so that its flat surface faces the buccal direction, and attempt to scan all areas. Additionally, it is advantageous to connect an ISB buccally when using a tabletop scanner.

Sleeve insert scan body to predict implant placement position by using implant surgical guides: A dental technique

In studies that assessed the accuracy of implant surgical guides, evaluations were based on the placement position of the implant by using a manufactured surgical guide. However, such assessments could involve errors that may occur during implant placement. Therefore, evaluating the 3-dimensional accuracy of the fabrication of the implant surgical guide itself is not enough. In the evaluation method described in this article, location-related information is obtained by connecting a scan body to the sleeve of the surgical guide instead of directly placing the implant. This helps to evaluate the accuracy of the surgical guide without errors in the placement of an implant.

The Effect of Perioral Scan and Artificial Skin Markers on the Accuracy of Virtual Dentofacial Integration: Stereophotogrammetry Versus Smartphone Three-Dimensional Face-Scanning

This study evaluated the effects of different matching methods on the accuracy of dentofacial integration in stereophotogrammetry and smartphone face-scanning systems. The integration was done (N = 30) with different matching areas (n = 10), including teeth image only (TO), perioral area without markers (PN) and with markers (PM). The positional accuracy of the integrated models was assessed by measuring the midline linear deviations and incisal line canting between the experimental groups and laser scanner-based reference standards. Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05). The PM method exhibited the smallest linear deviations in both systems; while the highest deviations were found in the TO in stereophotogrammetry; and in PN in smartphone. For the incisal line canting; the canting degree was the lowest in the PM method; followed by that in the TO and the PN in both systems. Although stereophotogrammetry generally exhibited higher accuracy than the smartphone; the two systems demonstrated no significant difference when the perioral areas were used for matching. The use of perioral scans with markers enables accurate dentofacial image integration; however; cautions should be given on the accuracy of the perioral image obtained without the use of markers.