Abstract
Statement of problem
Most of the available digital systems are designed to image teeth and soft tissue
rather than dental implants. However, although some are marketed specifically to record
implant position, whether these products are better for implant scanning is unclear.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of an implant intraoral
scanner (PiC camera) with that of an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) for 6 implants placed
in completely edentulous arches.
Material and methods
Two maxillary master models with 6 external hexagonal Ø5.1-mm implants were used,
one with parallel and the other with angled implants. The reference values were obtained
with a coordinate measuring machine. Ten scans were made per model (parallel and angled)
and system (intraoral and implant) (n=10), after which the 3-dimensional coordinates
for each implant were determined with a computer-aided design software program and
compared with the linear and angular reference values. Statistical significance was
determined with the Student t test (α=.05).
Results
Statistically significant differences (P<.001) were found in both precision and trueness. The overall errors relative to the
reference in the parallel implant-supported casts based on the implant scanner were
20 μm (P=.031) and 0.354 degrees (P=.087) compared with 100 μm (P<.001) and 1.177 degrees (P<.001) in the cast based on conventional digital scans. The global errors in the angled
implant casts were 10 μm (P=.055) and 0.084 degrees (P=.045) for the implant digital scans and 23 μm (P=.179) and 0.529 degrees (P<.001) for the conventional digital scans.
Conclusions
The implant intraoral scanner delivered greater precision and trueness than the conventional
instrument for imaging complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.
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
- Consensus statements and clinical recommendations for implant loading protocols.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29 Suppl: 287-290
- Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature.Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017; 10 Suppl 1: 121-138
- Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit.J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81: 7-13
- The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status.Implant Dent. 2001; 10: 85-92
- Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study.J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 11: 186-194
- Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique.Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995; 6: 172-180
- Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017; 28: 648-653
- Osseointegration and its experimental background.J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 50: 399-410
- Strain situation after fixation of three-unit ceramic veneered implant superstructures.Implant Dent. 2005; 14: 157-165
- 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
- Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported by Branemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991; 6: 270-276
- Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners.J Prosthodont Res. 2017; 61: 450-459
- Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109: 121-128
- Impressions are changing.J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140: 1301-1304
- Recent advances in dental optics - part I: 3D intraoral scanners for restorative dentistry.Opt Lasers Eng. 2014; 54: 203-221
- Intraoral digital impression technique: a review.J Prosthodont. 2015; 24: 313-321
- A comparative analysis of intraoral 3D digital scanners for restorative dentistry.Internet J Med Technol. 2012; 5: 1-18
- A comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanners using an intraoral environment simulator.J Adv Prosthodont. 2018; 10: 58
- Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners.Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18: 1687-1694
- Comparison of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques using 3-dimensional superimposition.J Adv Prosthodont. 2015; 7: 460
- 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
- Guided implant scanning: a procedure for improving the accuracy of implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124: 135-139
- Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology.PLoS One. 2012; 7e43312
- 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
- Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29: 853-862
- Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 277-283
- Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters.Implant Dent. 2015; 24: 498-504
- In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions.Quintessence Int. 2015; 46: 9-17
- Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 56-64
- The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners.J Esthet Restor Dent. 2020; 32: 204-218
- Do type and shape of scan bodies affect accuracy and time of digital implant impressions?.Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2020; 28: 18-27
- Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses.J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123: 96-104
- Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 755-761
- Improved digital impressions of edentulous areas.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 448-449
- Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part-an in vitro study.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019; 30: 1250-1258
- Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device.J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 447-454
- Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144: 471-478
- Influence of dentist experience with scan spray systems used in direct CAD/CAM impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113: 17-21
- Precision of guided scanning procedures for full-arch digital impressions in vivo.J Orofac Orthop. 2017; 78: 466-471
- Photogrammetry and conventional impressions for recording implant positions: a comparative laboratory study.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2005; 7: 43-50
- In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 313-320
- Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth.Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015; 17: e54-e64
- Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes.Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016; 27: 465-472
- Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 171-175
- Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review.J Prosthodont. 2018; 27: 35-41
- An in vitro comparison of photogrammetric and conventional complete-arch implant impression techniques.J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 110: 243-251
- Photogrammetric method to measure the discrepancy between clinical and software-designed positions of implants.J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 115: 703-711
- 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
- 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
- Relationship between resolution and accuracy of four intraoral scanners in complete-arch impressions.J Clin Exp Dent. 2018; 10: e361-e366
- Intraoral scanners in dentistry : a review of the current literature.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 149
- Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: an in vitro study.BMC Oral Health. 2017; 17: 149
- Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners.J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63: 396-403
- Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: a systematic literature review.J Clin Exp Dent. 2020; 12: e784-e793
- Using stereophotogrammetric technology for obtaining intraoral digital impressions of implants.J Am Dent Assoc. 2014; 145: 338-344
- Maxillary full-arch immediately loaded implant-supported fixed prosthesis designed and produced by photogrammetry and digital printing: a clinical report.J Prosthodont. 2017; 26: 75-81
- Stereophotogrammetry for recording the position of multiple implants: technical description.Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28: 631-636
- Combined stereophotogrammetry and laser-sintered, computer-aided milling framework for an implant-supported mandibular prosthesis: a case history report.Int J Prosthodont. 2018; 31: 60-62
- A combined digital and stereophotogrammetric technique for rehabilitation with immediate loading of complete-arch, implant-supported prostheses: a randomized controlled pilot clinical trial.J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118: 596-603
- Stereophotogrammetric impression making for polyoxymethylene, milled immediate partial fixed dental prostheses.J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 119: 506-510
- Photogrammetry impression technique: a case history report.Int J Prosthodont. 2016; 29: 71-73
- Geometrical product specifications (GPS) - acceptance and reverification tests for coordinate measuring machines (CMM) - part 2: CMMs used for measuring linear dimensions (ISO 10360-2:2009).International Organization for Standardization, Madrid, Spain2010
- Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study.Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015; 30: 102-109
Article info
Publication history
Published online: April 06, 2021
Footnotes
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 by the Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
