Abstract
Statement of problem
Information regarding the effect of the height and position of a coded healing abutment
(CHA) on the trueness of intraoral digital scans is lacking.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the effect of the height and
position of a scannable CHA on the trueness (distance and angular deviations) of intraoral
digital scans.
Material and methods
Scannable CHAs (BellaTek Encode Impression system; Zimmer Biomet Dental) were used
in 2 different height pairs (3 mm and 8 mm) on 2 implants at mandibular left second
and first molar positions. Each pair was scanned 10 times by using 1 intraoral scanner
(TRIOS; 3Shape) by 1 operator to generate a total of 20 intraoral scan files. Master
standard tessellation language (STL) files were created for both 3-mm and 8-mm CHA
pairs by using a structured blue light scanner (COMET L3D 8M 150 Precision Structured
Blue Light Scanner; ZEISS). These master STL files were imported into a software program
(PolyWorks Inspector) and were used as the reference for the inspection. Scans obtained
by using the intraoral scanner were aligned to the reference scan by using a best-fit
alignment to measure the distance and angular deviations. Two-way repeated-measures
ANOVA was used to analyze the data, and the Tukey-Kramer test was used to determine
significant differences among groups (α=.05).
Results
The CHA position had a significant effect on distance deviation (P<.001). However, no significant effect of CHA height on distance deviation was found.
The interaction between CHA height and position had a significant effect on the angular
deviation (P=.041). The 3-mm posterior CHA (P=.026) and 8-mm anterior CHA (P=.039) had significantly lower angular deviations than the 8-mm posterior CHA.
Conclusions
The distance deviation of CHA was significantly influenced by position. CHAs in the
anterior had lower distance deviations for both 3 mm and 8 mm. The effect of CHA height
on distance deviation was found to be small and was affected by the location of the
CHA. Height affected angular deviation depending on the position of the CHA. Both
3-mm posterior and 8-mm anterior CHAs showed lower angular deviations than the 8-mm
posterior CHA.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic DentistryAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2008; 100: 285-291
- Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 171-175
- Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: a systematic review.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: e751-e764
- A clinical protocol for intraoral digital impression of screw-retained CAD/CAM framework on multiple implants based on wavefront sampling technology.Implant Dent. 2013; 22: 320-325
- Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 836-845
- Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: an evaluation of accuracy.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 574-579
- Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for implant restorations.J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: e530-e535
- Impact of procedures during prosthodontic treatment on patients' perceived burdens.J Dent. 2015; 43: 51-57
- Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems-An in vitro study.J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61: 177-184
- Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: a novel in vivo analysis method.J Dent. 2018; 69: 110-118
- The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012; 14: e30-e38
- An in vitro comparison of the accuracy of implant impressions with coded healing abutments and different implant angulations.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 90-100
- Three-dimensional accuracy of a digitally coded healing abutment implant impression system.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 927-936
- A novel technique using a coded healing abutment for the fabrication of a CAD/CAM titanium abutment for an implant-supported restoration.J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 95: 258-261
- The effect of coded healing abutments on treatment duration and clinical outcome: a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing Encode and conventional impression protocols.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2017; 32: 1172-1179
- Comparison of the accuracy of Biomet 3i Encode Robocast technology and conventional implant impression techniques.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2013; 28: 228-240
- The use of a coded healing abutment as an impression coping to design and mill an individualized anatomic abutment: a clinical report.J Prosthet Dent. 2011; 105: 181-185
- Utilization of digital technologies for fabrication of definitive implant-supported restorations.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012; 24: 299-309
- CAD/CAM implant abutments using coded healing abutments: a detailed description of the restorative process.Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013; 34: 612-615
- Using digitally coded healing abutments and an intraoral scanner to fabricate implant-supported, cement-retained restorations.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 210-215
- A simplified impression protocol for fabrication of anatomical, cement-retained CAD/CAM abutments.Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2014; 34: 19-25
- Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 343-352
- A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies-an experimental approach.J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 34-41
- Digital implant impression technique accuracy: a systematic review.Implant Dent. 2017; 26: 929-935
- Effect of intraoral scanning on the passivity of fit of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses.Quintessence Int. 2012; 43: 555-562
- Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners.J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61: 450-459
- Accuracy of digital models generated by conventional impression/plaster-model methods and intraoral scanning.Dent Mater J. 2018; 37: 628-633
- ISO 5275-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: General principles and definitions.International Organization for Standardization, Geneva1994 (Available at)
- Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 715-719
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
- Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
- Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.J Prosthet Dent. 27 Apr 2019; (pii: S0022-3913(19)30076-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.01.003)
- The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 25 Jul 2019; (https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12821)
- Implications of implant framework misfit: a systematic review of biomechanical sequelae.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 608-621
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 18, 2019
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
