Effect of 3D printer, implant analog system, and implant angulation on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accumulative effect of 3D printer, implant analog systems, and implant angulation on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts. METHODS: A reference cast, presenting a case of a three-unit implant-supported prosthesis, was scanned with a coordinate measurement machine, producing the first reference data set (CMM, n = 1). The second reference data set (n = 10) was prepared using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4). Test quadrant casts were produced using three DLP type 3D printers, Max (MAX UV385), Pro (PRO 4K65 UV), and Nex (NextDent 5100), and three implant analog systems, El (Elos), Nt (Nt-trading), and St (Straumann) (n = 90). Stone casts were also produced via analog impressions (Stone, n = 10). After digitization, the accuracy of 3D distance, local angulation (angle between implants) and global angulation (angle between the implant center axis and an axis perpendicular to the global plane) was evaluated by comparing the reference (CMM, IOS), test (3D print), and control (Stone) groups using metrology software. Data were statistically analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey`s tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: IOS was truer in 3D implant distance and more precise in capturing local angulation than Stone (p ≤ 0.05). Other measurements were similar between both groups (p > 0.05). The amount of error introduced in the workflow by IOS and 3D printing was mostly similar (p > 0.05). 3D printed casts had similar or even higher accuracy than Stone group (p > 0.05). In most cases, higher trueness was achieved when using PRO 4K65 UV 3D printer and Elos implant analog system (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: 3D printer, implant analog system, and implant angulation have a significant effect on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts. Limited-span implant-supported cases could be reproduced digitally with similar accuracy as conventional methods. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A fully digital workflow with a carefully selected 3D printer and implant analog system can increase the accuracy of digitally produced implant casts with comparable accuracy to conventional workflow.

Effect of Different Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Bite Registration in Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Arches.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to use in vitro models to examine the bite registration accuracy of four different intraoral scanners (IOS) for edentulous maxillary and mandibular arches. The objective was to assess the trueness and precision of the IOS and determine if there were significant differences between them. METHODS: An Asiga Max UV 3D printer was used to print maxillary and mandibular edentulous models based on the shape of Frasaco models (artificial dental arch models). Four dental implants were placed symmetrically in both models using Straumann BLT RC implants. Digital impressions were taken with Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4, and Medit i500 intraoral scanners (n = 10 for each IOS). Digital bite registrations were made, and scanning data was exported in STL format. The accuracy of the interarch distance (the distance between the metrological spheres attached to the mandibular and maxillary models) was estimated for each IOS. RESULTS: The results showed significant differences in trueness and precision between different IOS (p <.05), except Medit i500 and Trios 3 (p >.05). Primescan provided the most accurate results, followed by Medit i500, Trios 3, and Trios 4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: within the limitations of this study, the IOS type affects the accuracy of interocclusal bite registration in in vitro design. Only Primescan achieved clinically acceptable accuracy for the interocclusal recording of edentulous arches. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The comparison of the accuracy of bite registration between different intraoral scanners will help increase the efficiency of the clinical application of digitalized interarch registration.

Trueness of maxillomandibular relationship in 3D-printed and conventional casts.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the trueness of maxillomandibular relationship between articulated 3D-printed and conventional diagnostic casts in maximum intercuspation (MIP). METHODS: Reference casts were articulated in MIP, and scanned using a Coordinate Measurement Machine (CMM, n = 1). Digital scans were made from the reference casts by using an intraoral scanner (IOS, n = 10) (Trios 4; 3Shape A/S). IOS scans were processed to create 3D-printed casts by using MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems) 3D-printers. The conventional workflow implemented vinylpolysiloxane (VPS) impressions and Type IV stone. Stone and 3D-printed casts were articulated and digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape A/S). The 3D-printed casts were scanned on two occasions: with and without positioning pins. Inter-arch distances and 3D-contact area were measured and compared. Statistical tests used were Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Welch's t-test, and 2-way ANOVA (α=0.05). RESULTS: IOS group showed similar or better maxillomandibular relationship trueness than stone casts and 3D-printed casts (p < 0.05). 3D-contact area analysis showed similar deviations between 3D-printed and stone casts (p > 0.05). The choice of 3D-printer and presence of positioning pins on the casts significantly influenced maxillomandibular relationship trueness (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Articulated 3D-printed and stone casts exhibited similar maxillomandibular relationship trueness. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although 3D-printing methods can introduce a considerable amount of deviations, the maxillomandibular relationship trueness of articulated 3D-printed and stone casts in MIP can be considered similar.

Trueness of Crown Preparation Dies in Dental Models: An In Vitro Assessment of Digital and Analog Workflows.

PURPOSE: To assess crown die trueness using additive manufacturing (AM) based on intraoral scanning (IOS) data and compare it with stone models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Crown dies with four finish line types- equigingival shoulder (SAE), subgingival shoulder (SAS), equigingival chamfer (CAE), and subgingival chamfer (CAS)-were incorporated into a reference model and scanned with a coordinate measurement machine (CMM; n = 1 scan). Trios4 (3Shape) scans generated a second reference dataset (IOS; n = 10 scans). Using scans, crown dies were produced with two different 3D printers (MAX UV385 [Asiga] and NextDent 5100 [3DSystems]; n = 10 per system). Stone dies were created from conventional impressions (n = 10). Specimens were digitized with a laboratory scanner (E4, 3Shape). Trueness was evaluated with Geomagic Control X (3DSystems). Data analysis was done using Shapiro-Wilk, Levene, ANOVA, and t tests (α < .05). RESULTS: All crown dies fell within the clinically acceptable trueness range (150 µm). IOS exhibited significantly lower (P < .05; Δ ≤ 21.7 µm) or similar trueness compared to stone models. Asiga dies demonstrated similar and NextDent significantly lower marginal trueness than IOS (P < .05; Δ ≤ 57.3 µm). Most AM margin areas had significantly lower trueness than stone (P < .001; Δ ≤ 57.2 µm). Asiga outperformed NextDent (P < .001). Shoulder trueness surpassed chamfer in optical scans (P = .01). Finish line design and gingiva location did not have a significant impact on AM and stone models (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Combining IOS and AM achieves clinically acceptable crown die trueness for single molar teeth. The choice of AM device is critical, with Asiga outperforming NextDent. Finish-line design has an impact on optical scans. Finish-line design and marginal gingiva location have little effect on AM trueness.

Error propagation from intraoral scanning to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models: An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate deviation propagation from data acquisition with an intraoral scanner to additive manufacturing of complete-arch dentate models. METHODS: A reference (Ref) mandibular dentate model having 5 precision spheres was scanned with a coordinate measurement machine equipped with a laser scanning head (ALTERA; Nikon) producing a Ni reference data set (n = 1). Digital impressions were taken of the Ref model with intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4; 3Shape) with Insane (T4_Imo) and Classic (T4_Cmo) scanning modes (each n = 10). T4_Imo scans were used as a second reference data set and to produce test models with two additive manufacturing (AM) devices (each n = 10): MAX UV385 (Asiga) and NextDent 5100 (3DSystems). As for the control group, dual viscosity vinyl polysiloxane impressions were taken of the Ref model and poured with Type IV dental stone (n = 10). All AM and stone models were scanned with a laboratory scanner (E4; 3Shape). Trueness and precision of linear (intermolar and intercanine width, arch length) and surface deviations were measured between reference (Ni, T4_Imo), test (T4_Cmo, AM), and control (stone) groups using best-fit alignments (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems). The normality of data and differences between the groups were analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk, Levene's, Mann-Whitney U, Welch's t-test statistical analysis (p<0.05). RESULTS: The accuracy of the IOS impression was not significantly affected by the scanning mode (p>0.05). Stone models showed significantly better trueness than IOS impressions (p<0.05). AM models had higher trueness than IOS Imo digital impressions (p<0.05). The precision of AM models was comparable (linear, p>0.05) or lower (surface, p<0.05) than of IOS Imo digital impressions. Trueness was insignificantly different among the stone and AM models (p>0.05). Higher trueness was achieved by Max UV385 than with Nextdent 5100 (p<0.05). The majority of linear and all surface deviations of IOS impressions and AM models were below 200 µm. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, digital IOS impressions and AM models using the aforementioned equipment have acceptable accuracy for orthodontic and prosthodontic applications when complete-arch dentate records are used. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: IOS and AM devices can have a significant influence on error propagation when applying digital workflow with complete-arch dentate models.

In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of the study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions for fixed dental prosthesis under in vitro and in vivo conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients (five women and three men) with at least one edentulous arch and with 4-6 osseointegrated implants participated in this study. For each edentulous arch (n = 10), experimental screw-retained titanium bar with attached four scan bodies was fabricated. The bar containing four scan bodies was screw-retained intraorally on implants and scanned with Trios 3 intraoral scanner eight times (IOS group, in vivo). Then, the bar was attached to the master cast and scanned eight times again with the same intraoral scanner (MIOS group, in vitro). Finally, the bar with scan bodies was scanned 8 times with a laboratory scanner (reference). Precision and trueness were calculated for 3 distances and 3 angles between the scan bodies (1-2, 1-3, and 1-4) in IOS and MIOS groups. RESULTS: Precision and trueness for the largest distance (1-4) were found to be 44 ± 18 µm and 32 ± 19 µm for the IOS group and 31 ± 16 µm and 30 ± 14 µm for MIOS group, respectively. Precision and trueness for the angle between the most distant scan bodies (1-4) were 0.22 ± 0.14° and 0.18 ± 0.10° for the IOS group and 0.16 ± 0.11° and 0.07 ± 0.05° for MIOS group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoral conditions moderately affected the precision and trueness of Trios 3 (3Shape) intraoral scanner. Results of in vitro accuracy studies cannot be directly transferred to the clinical field.