A biologically oriented preparation technique (BOPT) for immediate posterior implant placement, immediate provisionalization, and definitive implant crown fabrication: A complete digital workflow.

OBJECTIVE: Immediate implants and immediate alveolar sealing have been a widely utilized treatment with high predictability and biological advantages. The improvement in technology has made it possible to simplify clinical processes. The aim of the present report was to describe the complete digital workflow of the Biologically oriented preparation technique for immediate posterior implant, immediate provisionalization and fabrication of definitive implant crowns. CLINICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The surgical process and prosthetic management to preserve the gingival contours of the extracted natural tooth during immediate implant placement and provisionalization are described. Additionally, during the same clinical intervention, the definitive intraoral digital implant scans for capturing the implant position, peri-implant tissue contours, adjacent and antagonist dentition, and profile emergence of the interim implant crown are captured for the fabrication of the definitive crown. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the technique described, the immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the posterior area provides biological and clinical advantages, reducing the number of abutment-implant disconnections and the number of clinical appointments, as well as increases patient comfort. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The present article describes a technique for an immediate implant placement and provisionalization in the posterior region for maintaining the gingival architecture of the extracted tooth. During the same appointment, the implant position, peri-implant tissue contours, and adjacent and antagonist dentition, and profile emergence of the interim implant crown are captured by using an intraoral scanner and used for the fabrication of the definitive crown. This technique aims to reduce the number of abutment-implant disconnections and clinical appointments.

Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4): occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05). RESULTS: Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans.

Intraoral Digital Scans for Fabricating Tooth-Supported Prostheses Using a Custom Intraoral Scan Body.

This article describes a technique to assist with intraoral digital scans for fabricating tooth-supported prostheses by using a custom intraoral scan body when the extension of the scan or the clinical characteristics might compromise the reliability of the intraoral digital scan. A preliminary intraoral scan of the tooth preparations is used to design a custom intraoral scan body which is manufactured using polymethylmethacrylate and a 5-axis milling machine. A low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane impression of the tooth preparations is obtained using the custom intraoral scan body. Subsequently, the custom intraoral scan body is digitized using an intraoral scanner. A design software program is used to align the digitized custom intraoral scan body with the preliminary intraoral scan to obtain the definitive virtual cast. This technique aims to reduce manual conventional laboratory procedures such as pouring dental impression or die trimming which might minimize inaccuracies on the virtual definitive cast.

Impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in complete-arch digital implant investigation.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the impact of the superimposition methods on accuracy analyses in digital implant research using an ISO-recommended 3-dimensional (3D) metrology-grade inspection software. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A six-implant edentulous maxillary model was scanned using a desktop scanner (7Series; DentalWings; Montreal, Canada) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4; 3Shape; Copenhagen, Denmark) to generate a reference and an experimental mesh, respectively. Thirty experimental standard tesselletion language (STL) files were superimposed onto the reference model's STL using the core features of six superimposition methods, creating the following groups: initial automated pre-alignment (GI), landmark-based alignment (G1), partial area-based alignment (G2), entire area-based alignment (G3), and double alignment combining landmark-based alignment with entire model area-based alignment (G4 ) or the scan bodies' surface (G5). The groups underwent various alignment variations, resulting in sixteen subgroups (n = 30). The alignment accuracy between experimental and reference meshes was quantified by using the root mean square (RMS) error as trueness and its fluctuation as precision. The Kruskal-Wallis test with a subsequent adjusted post-hoc Dunn's pairwise comparison test was used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). The reliability of the measurements was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: A total of 480 superimpositions were performed. No significant differences were found in trueness and precision among the groups (p > 0.05), except for partial area-based alignment (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed significant differences for partial area-based alignment considering only one scan body (p < 0.001). Initial automated alignment was as accurate as landmark-based, partial, or entire area-based alignments (p > 0.05). Double alignments did not improve alignment accuracy (p > 0.05). The entire area-based alignment of the scan bodies' surface had the least effect on accuracy analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Digital oral implant investigation remains unaffected by the superimposition method when ISO-recommended 3D metrology-grade inspection software is used. At least two scan bodies are needed when considering partial area-based alignments. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The superimposition method choice within the tested ISO-recommended 3D inspection software did not impact accuracy analyses in digital implant investigation.

Influence of the Use of Transepithelial Abutments vs. Titanium Base Abutments on Microgap Formation at the Dental Implant-Abutment Interface: An In Vitro Study.

This in vitro study aimed to assess the presence of microgaps at the implant-abutment interface in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses on transepithelial abutments versus Ti-base abutments. METHODS: Sixty conical connection dental implants were divided into two groups (n = 30). The control group consisted of three-unit bridge monolithic zirconia connected to two implants by a transepithelial abutment. The test group consisted of monolithic zirconia three-unit restoration connected to two implants directly by a titanium base (Ti-base) abutment. The sample was subjected to thermocycling (10,000 cycles at 5 °C to 55 °C, dwelling time 50 s) and chewing simulation (300,000 cycles, under 200 N at frequencies of 2 Hz, at a 30° angle). The microgap was evaluated at six points (mesiobuccal, buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, lingual, and distolingual) of each implant-abutment interface by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U tests (p > 0.05). RESULTS: The SEM analysis showed a smaller microgap at the implant-abutment interface in the control group (0.270 µm) than in the test group (3.902 µm). Statistically significant differences were observed between both groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use or not of transepithelial abutments affects the microgap size. The transepithelial abutments group presented lower microgap values at the interface with the implant than the Ti-base group in monolithic zirconia partial implant-supported fixed prostheses. However, both groups had microgap values within the clinically acceptable range.

Accuracy between 2D Photography and Dual-Structured Light 3D Facial Scanner for Facial Anthropometry: A Clinical Study.

(1) Background: Facial scanners are used in different fields of dentistry to digitalize the soft tissues of the patient's face. The development of technology has allowed the patient to have a 3-dimensional virtual representation, facilitating facial integration in the diagnosis and treatment plan. However, the accuracy of the facial scanner and the obtaining of better results with respect to the manual or two-dimensional (2D) method are questionable. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of the 3D method (a dual-structured light facial scanner) and compare it with the 2D method (photography) to obtain facial analysis in the maximum intercuspation position and smile position. (2) Methods: A total of 60 participants were included, and nine facial landmarks and five interlandmarks distances were determined by two independent calibrated operators for each participant. All measurements were made using three methods: the manual method (manual measurement), the 2D method (photography), and the 3D method (facial scanner). All clinical and lighting conditions, as well as the specific parameters of each method, were standardized and controlled. The facial interlandmark distances were made by using a digital caliper, a 2D software program (Adobe Photoshop, version 21.0.2), and a 3D software program (Meshlab, version 2020.12), respectively. The data were analyzed by SPSS statistical software. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that trueness and precision values were normally distributed (p > 0.05), so a Student's t-test was employed. (3) Results: Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.01) were observed in all interlandmark measurements in the 2D group (photography) to compare with the manual group. The 2D method obtained a mean accuracy value of 2.09 (±3.38) and 2.494 (±3.67) in maximum intercuspation and smile, respectively. On the other hand, the 3D method (facial scanner) obtained a mean accuracy value of 0.61 (±1.65) and 0.28 (±2.03) in maximum intercuspation and smile, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences with the manual method. (4) Conclusions: The employed technique demonstrated that it influences the accuracy of facial records. The 3D method reported acceptable accuracy values, while the 2D method showed discrepancies over the clinically acceptable limits.

Influence of ambient light conditions on the accuracy and scanning time of seven intraoral scanners in complete-arch implant scans.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of ambient light illuminance on the accuracy and scanning time of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in complete-arch implant scans. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven IOSs (TRIOS 3, Primescan, Element 5D, i700, i500, CS3700, and CS3600) at 5 ambient lighting illuminances (100, 500, 1000, 5000, and 10 000 lux) were evaluated. An edentulous cast with 4 implants was selected as the master model. An implant scan body was tightened on each implant. The cast was digitized by using a laboratory scanner to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file, and 50 scans (10 per ambient light condition) were recorded with each IOS. Scanning time was recorded by using a digital chronograph. Intraoral scan deviations were calculated by using a 3D metrology software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α=0.05). RESULTS: The trueness and precision values obtained for each IOS tested were significantly different under the varying lighting conditions assessed. TRIOS 3 (34.0 ± 3.3 µm trueness; 24.5 ± 14.9 µm precision), Element 5D (34.5 ± 7.1 µm trueness; 25.9 ± 7.6 µm precision), and CS3700 (34.9. ±13.0 µm trueness; 34.6 ± 19.2 µm precision) performed better under 100 lux illumination, CS3600 (69.5 ± 24.0 µm trueness; 36.6 ± 20.1 µm precision) at 500 lux; i500 (36.2 ± 5.1 µm trueness; 21.4 ± 6.8 µm precision) at 1000 lux; i700 (34.8 ± 2.2 µm trueness; 15.4 ± 5.0 µm precision) at 5000 lux, and Primescan (37.4 ± 37.3 µm trueness; 26.2 ± 26.2 µm precision) at 10,000 lux. Additionally, the scanning time was different under different illuminance for each IOS. The fastest IOS in all light conditions was Primescan, with significant differences with all the groups (P<.01), followed by TRIOS 3 in all groups except under 100 lux illumination, where i700 was the second fastest. CONCLUSIONS: Ambient light influenced the accuracy and scanning time of IOSs assessed; however, the effect was not the same for all devices. It is necessary to optimize ambient light illuminance for each IOS to maximize scanning accuracy.