Abstract
Statement of problem
Previous studies have analyzed factors influencing intraoral scanner accuracy; however,
how the intraoral scan body design affects the implant position on the virtual definitive
cast is unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the discrepancies of the implant
replica positions of the virtual definitive implant cast obtained by using 3 different
scan body designs when performing a digital scan.
Material and methods
A partially edentulous typodont with 3 implant replicas (Implant Replica RP Branemark
system; Nobel Biocare Services AG) was prepared. Three groups were determined based
on the scan body system evaluated: SB-1 (Elos Accurate Nobel Biocare), SB-2 (NT Digital
Implant Technology), and SB-3 (Dynamic Abutment). Each scan body was positioned on
each implant replica of the typodont, and was digitized by using an intraoral scanner
(iTero Element; Cadent) as per the manufacturer’s scanning protocol at 1000 lux illuminance.
A standard tessellation language (STL) file was obtained. Before the scan bodies were
removed from the typodont, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM Contura G2 10/16/06
RDS; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH) was used to measure the scan body positions
on the x-, y-, and z-axis. The linear and angular discrepancies between the position
of the scan bodies on the typodont and STL file were calculated by using the best
fit technique with a specific program (Calypso; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik
GmbH). The procedure was repeated until 10 STL files were obtained per group. The
Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were not normally distributed. The data were
analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).
Results
The coordinate measuring machine was unable to measure the scan body positions of
the magnetically retained SB-3 group because of its mobility when palpating at the
smallest pressure possible. Therefore, this group was excluded. No significant differences
were found in the linear discrepancies between the SB-1 and SB-2 groups (P>.05). The most accurate scan body position was obtained on the z-axis. However, the
SB-1 group revealed a significantly higher XZ angular discrepancy than the SB-2 group
(P<.001).
Conclusions
The scan body systems tested (SB-1 and SB-2 groups) accurately transferred the linear
implant positions to the virtual definitive implant cast. However, significant differences
were observed in the XZ angular implant positions between the scan body systems analyzed.
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
- Contemporary fixed prosthodontics.5th ed. Mosby/Elsevier, St. Louis2016: 434-441
- Comparisons of precision of fit between cast and CNC-milled titanium implant frameworks for the edentulous mandible.Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16: 194-200
- The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2008; 100: 285-291
- An introduction to dental digitizers in dentistry. A systematic review.J Chem Pharm Res. 2015; 7: 10-20
- Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: a systematic review.Clin Imp Dent and Relat Res. 2015; 17: e751-e764
- Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 836-845
- Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 0: 101-120
- Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography.US Patent 4575330. 1986;
- Three-dimensional accuracy of digital implant impressions: Effect of different scanners and implant level.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016; 32: 70-80
- An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla.J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 650-655
- Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 1360-1367
- Comparison of three-dimensional accuracy of digital and conventional implant impressions: Effect of interimplant distance in an edentulous arch.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019; 34: 366-380
- The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018; 29: 374-392
- Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: Effect of implant angulation and connection type.Int J Dent. 2018; 2018: 3761750
- Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 171-175
- Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2015; 26: 715-719
- Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 277-283
- Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
- Optical three- dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2009; 11: 214-221
- Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120: 343-352
- Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study.Clin Oral Investig. 2012; 16: 851-856
- Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 96-104
- Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS pod scanner.Quintessence Int. 2016; 47: 343-349
- A comparison of the precision of three-dimensional images acquired by two intraoral scanners: effects on tooth irregularities and scanning direction.Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46: 3-12
- Intraoral scanners technologies: A review to make a successful impression.J Healthc Eng. 2017; 116: 8427595
- Comparison of experience curves between two 3-dimensional intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 221-230
- Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 225-232
- Intraoral digital scans. Part-1: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of different intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 372-378
- Intraoral digital scans. Part-2: Influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 575-580
- Clinical study of the influence of ambient light scanning conditions on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of an intraoral scanner.J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 107-113
- Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws.J Am Dent Assoc. 2013; 144: 914-920
- Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners.Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 1687-1694
- The complete digital workflow in fixed prosthodontics: a systematic review.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 124-131
- Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 intraoral scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparison.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 36-42
- Evidence for use of intraoral scanners under clinical conditions for obtaining full-arch digital impressions is insufficient.Evid Based Dent. 2017; 18: 24-25
- Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions.J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10: e361-e366
- Accuracy of intraoral scanners: A systematic review of influencing factors.Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018; 26: 101-121
- Use of digital impression systems with intraoral scanners for fabricating restorations and fixed dental prostheses.J Oral Sci. 2018; 60: 1-7
- Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30: 113-118
- ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measuring methods and results. Part-I: General principles and definitions.International Organization for Standardization, Berlin1994 (Available at:)https://www.iso.org/standard/11833.html LastDate accessed: January 6, 2019
- The precision of the fit of milled titanium implant frameworks (I-Bridge®) in the edentulous jaw.Clin Impl Dent Related Res. 2010; 12: 81-90
- A novel method to evaluate precision of optical implant impressions with commercial scan bodies. An experimental approach.J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 34-41
Article info
Publication history
Published online: May 31, 2020
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
