Evaluation of the effect of different core substrates on the accuracy of intraoral scanners.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine if different types of core substrates have any effect on the trueness and precision of digital intraoral impressions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A customized typodont with four similar cores of natural dentine, composite, metal (Ni-Cr), and zirconia in the position of premolars was fabricated. The study model was scanned five times with two types of intraoral scanners (Carestream 3600 and 3Shape Trios 3), and a reference standard scan was obtained using a laboratory scanner (3shape D1000). A metrology software (Geomagic X) was used to align the data of experimental scans and the reference scan to determine deviation values (trueness). Precision values were calculated with random superimposition in each intraoral scanner group. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare differences between different substrates, and the Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the average values between the two scanners. RESULTS: Trios 3 was found to be significantly truer and more precise than Carestream 3600 (p value = .005, <0.001). There were no significant differences in the trueness of different substrates when they were scanned by Trios 3, while different materials showed significantly different trueness values in the Carestream 3600 group (p value = .003). Dentin showed the best trueness, and zirconia performed worse than other substrates. Regarding the precision of the scanners, neither of the scanners was affected by the type of scanning substrate. CONCLUSION: For Carestream 3600, substrate type did impact the trueness of intraoral scans, with dentin and zirconia showing the highest and lowest accuracy, respectively, while Trios 3 was similarly accurate across all substrates. Trios 3 had both higher trueness and precision than Carestream 3600.

Evaluation of the effect of chemical disinfection and ultraviolet disinfection on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material: an in-vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Various methods, chemical and physical, disinfect dental impressions. Common chemicals include 1% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde, while UV radiation is a prevalent physical method. Few studies compare their effects on dimensional stability in polyether impressions. This study aims to assess such stability using different disinfection methods. Therefore, this study was planned to evaluate the dimensional stability of polyether impression material using different disinfection methods. METHODS: This in vitro study compared the effects of chemical disinfectants (1% Sodium Hypochlorite and 2% glutaraldehyde) and UV irradiation on the dimensional stability of polyether impression material. Groups A, B, C, and D, each with ten samples (N = 10), were studied. Group A was untreated (control). Group B was treated with 2% glutaraldehyde for 20 min, Group C with 1% Sodium Hypochlorite for 20 min, and Group D with UV rays for 20 min. A pilot milling machine drill was used to make four parallel holes labeled A, B, C, and D in the anterior and premolar regions from right to left. After sequential drilling, four implant analogs were positioned using a surveyor for accuracy. Ten open-tray polyether impressions were made and treated as described in the groups, followed by pouring the corresponding casts. Distortion values for each disinfection method were measured using a coordinate measuring machine capable of recording on the X- and Y-axes. RESULTS: A comprehensive analysis was conducted using the one-way ANOVA test for distinct groups labeled A, B, C, and D, revealing significant differences in the mean distances for X1, X2, X4, X5, and X6 among the groups, with p-values ranging from 0.001 to 0.000. However, no significant differences were observed in X3. Notably, mean distances for the Y variables exhibited substantial differences among the groups, emphasizing parameter variations, with p-values ranging from 0.000 to 0.033. The results compared the four groups using the one-way ANOVA test, revealing statistically significant distance differences for most X and Y variables, except for X3 and Y4. Similarly, post-hoc Tukey's tests provided specific pairwise comparisons, underlining the distinctions between group C and the others in the mean and deviation distances for various variables on both the X- and Y-axes. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that disinfection with 1% sodium hypochlorite or UV rays for 20 min maintained dimensional stability in polyether impressions.

The internal and marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate endocrowns fabricated using intra and extraoral scanners: An in-vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: The impression technique highly influences the adaptation of ceramic restorations. Not enough information is available to compare the marginal (MF) and internal fit (IF) of endocrowns fabricated with various digitization techniques. Therefore, this in-vitro study aimed to compare the MF and IF of lithium disilicate (LDS) endocrowns fabricated through direct and indirect digital scanning methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One extracted maxillary molar was used to fabricate endocrowns. The digitization of the model was performed with (G1) direct scanning (n = 10) utilizing an intraoral scanner (IOS), (G2) indirectly scanning the conventional impression taken from the model using the same IOS (n = 10), (G3) indirectly digitalizing the obtained impression using an extraoral scanner (EOS) (n = 10), and (G4) scanning the poured cast using the same EOS (n = 10). The MF and IF of the endocrowns were measured using the replica method and a digital stereomicroscope. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze data. RESULTS: The studied groups differed significantly (p<0.001). G2 (130.31±7.87 µm) and G3 (48.43±19.14 µm) showed the largest and smallest mean vertical marginal gap, respectively. G2 and G3 led to the highest and lowest internal gaps in all regions, respectively. With significant differences among the internal regions (p<0.001), the pulpal area demonstrated the most considerable misfit in all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Scanning the impression using an extraoral scanner showed smaller marginal and internal gaps.

Evaluating the influence of palate scanning on the accuracy of complete-arch digital impressions-An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of including the palate and the number of images recorded during intraoral digital scanning procedure on the accuracy of complete arch scans. METHODS: An experienced operator conducted 40 digital scans of a 3D printed maxillary model and divided them into two groups: 20 with inclusion of the palate (PAL) and 20 without (NPAL). Each set of scans was performed using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios 5; 3Shape A/S; Copenhagen, Denmark). The resulting STL files were imported into the Geomagic Control X software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) for accuracy comparison. A reference STL file was created using a 3Shape E3 laboratory scanner (3Shape Scanlt Dental 2.2.1.0; Copenhagen, Denmark). The number of images captured was recorded during the scanning procedure. RESULTS: In the case of the right side no statistically significant difference in trueness was detected (84 µm ± 45.6 for PAL and 80.4 ± 40.4 µm for NPAL). In the case of the left side no significant difference in trueness was observed (215.1 ± 70.2 µm for PAL and 233.9 ± 70.7 µm for NPAL). In the case of the arch distortion a statistically significant difference in trueness was seen between the two types of scans (135.3 ± 71.9 µm for PAL and 380.4 ± 255.1 µm for NPAL). The average number of images was 831.25, and 593.8 for PAL and NPAL, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Scanning of the palatal area can significantly improve the accuracy of dental scans in cases of complete arches. In terms of the number of images, based on the current results, obvious conclusions could not be drawn, and further investigation is required. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Scanning the palate may be beneficial for improving the accuracy of intraoral scans in dentate patients. Consequently, this should be linked to an appropriate scanning strategy that predicts palatal scanning.

Trueness evaluation of three intraoral scanners for the recording of maximal intercuspal position.

OBJECTIVES: This clinical study aimed to assess the trueness of three intraoral scanners for the recor-ding of the maximal intercuspal position (MIP) to provide a reference for clinical practice. METHODS: Ten participants with good occlusal relationship and healthy temporomandibular joint were recruited. For the control group, facebow transferring procedures were performed, and bite registrations at the MIP were used to transfer maxillary and mandibular casts to a mechanical articulator, which were then scanned with a laboratory scanner to obtain digital cast data. For the experimental groups, three intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Carestream 3600, and Aoralscan 3) were used to obtain digital casts of the participants at the MIP following the scanning workflows endorsed by the corresponding manufacturers. Subsequently, measurement points were marked on the control group's digital casts at the central incisors, canines, and first molars, and corresponding distances between these points on the maxillary and mandibular casts were measured to calculate the sum of measured distances (DA). Distances between measurement points in the incisor (DI), canine (DC), and first molar (DM) regions were also calculated. The control group's maxillary and mandibular digital casts with the added measurement points were aligned with the experimental group's casts, and DA, DI, DC, and DM values of the aligned control casts were determined. Statistical analysis was performed on DA, DI, DC, and DM obtained from both the control and experimental groups to evaluate the trueness of the three intraoral scanners for the recording of MIP. RESULTS: In the control group, DA, DI, DC, and DM values were (39.58±6.40), (13.64±3.58), (14.91±2.85), and (11.03±1.56) mm. The Trios 3 group had values of (38.99±6.60), (13.42±3.66), (14.55±2.87), and (11.03±1.69) mm. The Carestream 3600 group showed values of (38.57±6.36), (13.56±3.68), (14.45±2.85), and (10.55±1.41) mm, while the Aoralscan 3 group had values of (38.16±5.69), (13.03±3.54), (14.23±2.59), and (10.90±1.54) mm. Analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups for overall deviation DA (P=0.96), as well as local deviations DI (P=0.98), DC (P=0.96), and DM (P=0.89). CONCLUSIONS: With standardized scanning protocols, the three intraoral scanners demonstrated comparable trueness to traditional methods in recording MIP, fulfilling clinical requirements.

Effect of different fabrication workflows on the passive fit of screw-retained bar splinting two interforaminal implants: a parallel blinded randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To clinically compare the effect of the conventional and the digital workflows on the passive fit of a screw retained bar splinting two inter-foraminal implants. METHODS: The current study was designed to be a parallel triple blinded randomised clinical trial. Thirty six completely edentulous patients were selected and simply randomized into two groups; conventional group (CG) and digital group (DG). The participants, investigator and outcome assessor were blinded. In the group (CG), the bar was constructed following a conventional workflow in which an open top splinted impression and a lost wax casting technology were used. However, in group (DG), a digital workflow including a digital impression and a digital bar milling technology was adopted. Passive fit of each bar was then evaluated clinically by applying the screw resistance test using the "flag" technique in the passive and non passive situations. The screw resistance test parameter was also calculated. Unpaired t-test was used for intergroup comparison. P-value < 0.05 was the statistical significance level. The study protocol was reviewed by the Research Ethics Committee in the author's university (Rec IM051811). Registration of the clinical trial was made on clinical trials.gov ID NCT05770011. An informed consent was obtained from all participants. RESULTS: Non statistically significant difference was denoted between both groups in all situations. In the passive situation, the mean ± standard deviation values were 1789.8° ± 20.7 and1786.1° ± 30.7 for the groups (CG) and (DG) respectively. In the non passive situation, they were 1572.8° ± 54.2 and 1609.2° ± 96.9. Regarding the screw resistance test parameter, they were 217° ± 55.3 and 176° ± 98.8. CONCLUSION: Conventional and digital fabrication workflows had clinically comparable effect on the passive fit of screw retained bar attachments supported by two dental implants.

Influence of a specially designed geometric device and modified scan bodies on the accuracy of a maxillary complete arch digital implant scan: An in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Capturing accurate complete arch digital implant scans remains a challenging process because of the lack of recognizable anatomic landmarks. The effect of modified scan bodies (SBs) on improving scanning accuracy is unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the accuracy of a maxillary complete arch digital implant scan when using a specially designed geometric device with the accuracy of modified scan bodies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four implants were placed in an edentulous maxillary model made of porous bone material with polyurethane attached gingiva. Scan bodies were attached to the implants and then digitized with a high precision laboratory scanner to create the reference scan. Round depressions were made on the buccal and palatal surfaces of the scan bodies, and the model was scanned with an intraoral scanner using 4 different scenarios: the model with no geometric device or modified scan bodies (ND-NM), device only without modified scan bodies (D-NM), no device but with modified scan bodies (ND-M), and device with modified scan bodies (D-M). Each group was scanned 10 times for a total of 40 scans. Trueness and precision were evaluated using inspection software to measure the 3D surface deviation. Trueness was measured by superimposing each test scan on the reference scan, and precision was calculated by superimposing the test scans of the same group with each other. Data were analyzed using the GraphPad Prism version 8.0.0 software program. Two-way ANOVA was performed to assess the effect of the device and modifications on trueness and precision (α=.05). RESULTS: Both the geometric device and SB modifications had a significantly significant effect on trueness and precision (P<.001). Regarding trueness, group D-M had the lowest mean and standard deviation (0.158 ±0.028 mm) in contrast with group ND-NM, which had the highest deviation (0.282 ±0.038 mm). In terms of precision, group D-M showed the lowest mean and standard deviation (0.134 ±0.013 mm), while group ND-NM revealed the highest deviation (0.222 ±0.031 mm). However, no statistically significant interaction was found between the device and modifications regarding either trueness or precision (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Using a specially designed geometric device improved both the trueness and precision of complete arch digital implant scans. The modified SBs had a positive influence on the scanning trueness and precision, and the best accuracy was achieved when using the geometric device and the modified SBs simultaneously.

Accuracy of Conventional and 3D-Printed Casts for Partial Fixed Prostheses.

PURPOSE: To evaluate and compare the accuracy of conventional and 3D-printed casts using five different 3D printers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the control group (CG group, n = 5), five conventional impressions using light- and heavy-body polyvinyl siloxane were obtained from the master model, resulting in five stone models. In the test groups, five different scans were performed by a well-trained and experienced clinician using a TRIOS intraoral scanner. All data were exported in STL file format, processed, and sent to five 3D printers. Five casts were manufactured in each printer group: SG (CARES P20, Straumann); FG (Form 2, Formlabs); WG (Duplicator 7, Wanhao); ZG (Zenith D, Zenith); and MG (Moonray S100, Moonray). Measurements of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the casts obtained from conventional elastomeric impressions and 3D-printing methods were accomplished using a 3D analysis software (Geomagic Control). RESULTS: The FG group showed the lowest values for trueness (indicating a value closer to real dimensions), which were similar to the SG group only (P > .05). MG, WG, and ZG groups presented higher values and were similar compared to each other. Data on precision demonstrated that all 3D-printed groups showed lower values for precision (smaller deviation) when compared to the CG. CONCLUSIONS: The trueness depends on the chosen 3D printer. All of the tested 3D printers were more precise than cast models obtained from conventional elastomeric impressions.

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.

Dimensional Stability of Additively Manufactured Diagnostic Maxillary Casts Fabricated with Different Model Resins.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of model resin type and time interval on the dimensional stability of additively manufactured diagnostic casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten irreversible hydrocolloid impressions and 10 impressions from an intraoral scanner were made from a reference maxillary stone cast, which was also digitized with a laboratory scanner. Conventional impressions were poured in type III stone (SC), while digital impressions were used to additively manufacture casts with a nanographene-reinforced model resin (GP) or a model resin (DM). All casts were digitized with the same laboratory scanner 1 day (T0), 1 week (T1), 2 weeks (T2), 3 weeks (T3), and 4 weeks (T4) after fabrication. Cast scans were superimposed over the reference cast scan to evaluate dimensional stability. Data were analyzed with Bonferroni-corrected repeated measures ANOVA (α = .05). RESULTS: The interaction between the main factors (material type and time interval) affected anterior teeth deviations, while the individual main factors affected anterior teeth and entire-cast deviations (P ≤ .008). Within anterior teeth, DM had the lowest deviations at T3, and GP mostly had lower values at T2 and lower deviations at T3 than at T0 (P ≤ .041). SC had the highest pooled anterior teeth deviations, and GP had the highest pooled entire cast deviations (P < .001). T3 had lower pooled anterior teeth deviations than at T0, T1, and T4, and higher pooled entire cast deviations than T1 were demonstrated (P ≤ .027). CONCLUSIONS: The trueness of nanographene-reinforced casts was either similar to or higher than that of other casts. Dimensional changes were acceptable during the course of 1 month.

Precision Matters: The Evolution of Impression Systems and Materials.

The clinical success of indirect restorations is directly correlated with their specific anatomic shape and design as well as marginal accuracy and overall precision of fit. These factors require a precise impression of the preparation and, to the extent necessary and possible, other teeth and supporting hard and soft tissues.

Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions - An in vitro study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of intraoral scanning coverage (IOSC) on digital implant impression accuracy in various partially edentulous situations and predict the optimal IOSC. METHODS: Five types of resin models were fabricated, each simulating single or multiple tooth loss scenarios with inserted implants and scan bodies. IOSC was subgrouped to cover two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve teeth, as well as full arch. Each group underwent ten scans. A desktop scanner served as the reference. Accuracy was evaluated by measuring the Root mean square error (RMSE) values of scan bodies. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to predict the optimal IOSC with different edentulous situations. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. RESULTS: For single-tooth-missing situations, in anterior sites, significantly better accuracy was observed in groups with IOSC ranging from four teeth to full arch (p < 0.05). In premolar sites, IOSC spanning four to six teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05), while in molar sites, groups with IOSC encompassing two to eight teeth exhibited better accuracy (p < 0.05). For multiple-teeth-missing situations, IOSC covering four, six, and eight teeth, as well as full arch showed better accuracy in anterior gaps (p < 0.05). In posterior gaps, IOSC of two, four, six or eight teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05). The CNN predicted distinct optimal IOSC for different edentulous scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Implant impression accuracy can be significantly impacted by IOSC in different partially edentulous situations. The selection of IOSC should be customized to the specific dentition defect condition. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The number of teeth scanned can significantly affect digital implant impression accuracy. For missing single or four anterior teeth, scan at least four or six neighboring teeth is acceptable. In lateral cases, two neighboring teeth may suffice, but extending over ten teeth, including contralateral side, might deteriorate the scan.

Evaluation and comparison of the accuracy of three intraoral scanners for replicating a complete denture.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Technological advances in digital acquisition tools have increased the scope of intraoral scanners (IOSs), including scanning a removable complete denture (RCD) to replicate it. However, studies assessing the accuracy of IOSs for replicating a maxillary or mandibular RCD are lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the accuracy (trueness and precision) of 3 IOSs while replicating a maxillary and mandibular RCD. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One maxillary and 1 mandibular RCD were scanned with a desktop scanner (D2000) to obtain the reference model. Two operators scanned each RCD 5 times with 3 different IOSs (TRIOS 4, Primescan, and IS3800), following a predefined acquisition protocol. The 60 study models obtained were compared with the reference model using the Geomagic software program. For each comparison, the mean and standard deviation of discrepancy were calculated. Distances were measured on both the reference and the study model, and differences were calculated to assess whether sagittal or transverse deformations were present. The tolerance percentage of the volume of the digital model compared with the volume of the reference model was determined (difference tolerance was set at 0.1 mm). A univariate analysis of variance followed by a post hoc analysis using the Student-Newman-Keuls (α=.05) test was performed to determine the truest and the most precise IOS. RESULTS: The TRIOS 4 and Primescan IOSs had comparable trueness, with mean dimensional variations of 47 ±27 µm and 57 ±8 µm respectively compared with the reference model. The IS3800 had a lower trueness (98 ±35 µm). Primescan was significantly more precise with a mean standard deviation of 64 ±15 µm (P<.05). The TRIOS 4 (141 ±48 µm) and IS3800 (129 ±24 µm) had comparable precision. Primescan showed the least sagittal and transverse deformation. CONCLUSIONS: This study determined that an RCD can be replicated using an IOS, although all IOSs did not have equal accuracy. An in vivo study needs to assess whether this procedure is clinically acceptable.

Impact of scanning range and image count on the precision of digitally recorded intermaxillary relationships in interocclusal record using intraoral scanner.

PURPOSE: The effect of scan range and the number of scanned images on the precision of in vivo intermaxillary relationship reproduction was evaluated using digital scans acquired with an intraoral scanner. METHODS: The study involved 15 participants with normal occlusion. Two different interocclusal recording settings were employed using the intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4): 'MIN,' focusing on the minimal scan range of the first molar region, and 'MAX,' including the scan range from the right first premolar to the right second molar. These settings were combined with three different image counts, resulting in six experimental conditions. Interocclusal recordings were performed four times for each condition. Dimensional discrepancies between datasets were analyzed using three-dimensional morphometric software and compared using two-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Median dimensional discrepancies (interquartile range; IQR) of 39.2 (30.7-49.4), 42.2 (32.6-49.3), 30.3 (26.8-44.1), 20.1 (16.0-34.8), 21.8 (19.0-25.1), and 26.6 (19.9-34.5) µm were found for MIN/200, MIN/400, MIN/600, MAX/200, MAX/400, and MAX/600, respectively. Significant differences in dimensional discrepancies according to scan range were found. Wilcoxon signed-rank test showed significant differences between MAX and MIN (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Scan range may affect the precision of intermaxillary relationship reproduction. Thus, scanning of the most extensive region practically achievable is recommended.

A comparison study: The use of digital and conventional impression techniques in dental hygiene education.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to assess the applicability of digital intraoral scanning in dental hygiene education and compare the quality, efficiency, and ease of use to conventional impression techniques. METHODS: Twenty-eight first-year dental hygiene students (DH1) at UTHealth Houston School of Dentistry (UTSD) participated in this 2022 study. Each student participated in two 4-h lab sessions. Students took traditional alginate impressions and digital intraoral scans using Planmeca Romexis on standardized teeth during the first and second sessions. Both techniques were assessed by faculty for quality and efficiency using a standardized rubric. Participants completed a post-survey providing insight into their perceptions of both techniques and ease of use. RESULTS: The study had 100% participation in the lab sessions and survey responses (N = 28). The results showed digital scanning produced a statistically higher quality product than conventional alginate impressions (p = 0.023). The study found no statistical difference in the efficiency between the two methods. The majority of students (82%) agreed that digital intraoral scanning was easy to use (p = 0.001), and 89% agreed they would use digital intraoral scanning in clinical courses to help with patient care (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In this study, dental hygiene students with limited clinical experience learned new technology and used it to produce quality impressions compared to the conventional technique, indicating the value of introducing digital dentistry early in dental hygiene education.

Accuracy of Silicone Impressions and Stone Models Using Two Laboratory Scanners: A 3D Evaluation.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the in vitro accuracy of impressions obtained with two silicone and corresponding stone models using two laboratory scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A master model with synthetic resin teeth with two single-unit crown preparations was created and scanned using a 12-megapixel scanner. Five conventional impressions of the physical model were prepared with different silicone impression systems (Zhermack and Coltene) using the double-mix technique and poured with gypsum. The impressions and stone models obtained were scanned using two extraoral scanning systems (Identica T500, Medit; S600 ARTI, Zirkonzahn). All best-fit superimpositions of the teeth areas were conducted between the master model and the scans of the impressions and models obtained with the two scanners. A P < .05 level was considered significant. RESULTS: The Identica T500 Medit scanner showed an accuracy of 102.34 (89.67, 115.01) µm for Coltene silicone and 79.51 (67.82, 91.21) µm for Zhermack silicone, while the S600 ARTI Zirkonzhan scanner presented 110.79 (98.24, 123.33) µm and 91.91 (81.29, 102.54) µm, respectively, with significant differences between scanners for Zhermack silicone (P = .008) and for the corresponding stone models (P = .002). Zhermack silicone presented overall discrepancies lower than Coltene silicone, with statistically significant differences in both scanners analyzed (P < .001; P = .017). However, the discrepancies found were within clinically acceptable values. With the Zirkonzahn scanner, discrepancies found in the Zhermack impressions were lower than in the corresponding stone models (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The direct digitization of silicone impressions with laboratory scanners presented comparable results to conventional techniques with stone models.

Fabrication of complete dentures for an older patient with mobility impairment in three appointments: A dental technique.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical procedures of complete denture set fabrication in three appointments. BACKGROUND: Simplified approaches have proven not to be inferior to conventional ones in terms of quality, patient satisfaction and masticatory ability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The patient was a 77-year-old edentulous adult with mobility impairment seeking dental rehabilitation in a small number of appointments due to commuting difficulties. RESULTS: A set of complete dentures was delivered within three appointments. The second appointment was dedicated to set-up trial due to the patient's aesthetic demands. CONCLUSION: Under certain circumstances and after a thorough study of each case, dental clinicians may propose the fabrication of complete dentures in a three-appointment protocol incorporating a set-up trial session.

Influence of the Number of Scan Bodies on Full-Arch Implant Scanning: A Comparison of 2 vs 4 Implants.

Accuracy is a necessity in implant impressions to fabricate accurately fitting implant-supported prostheses. This in vitro study aimed to explore the impact of the number of scan bodies on scanning quality by comparing scans of 2 vs 4 implants, and to determine if their accuracy and precision meets acceptable clinical threshold. Two mandibular edentulous models were used: one with 4-parallel implants (4-IM) and the other with 2-parallel implants (2-IM). Each model was scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner, while reference scans were obtained with a high-precision laboratory scanner. The accuracy of test scans was evaluated by superimposing them onto reference scans and measuring 3D and angular deviations of the scan bodies. To assess the precision, the repeatability of the scans was analyzed by measuring the 3D SDs. Independent t test was used to compare angular deviations, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for 3D deviations and 3D SDs, and 1 sample t test was used for comparing means to the clinical threshold. Angular and 3D deviations were statistically not significant between the 2 groups (P = .054 and 0.143). 3D deviation values were higher than the 150-µm threshold for 2-IM (201 µm) and 4-IM (290 µm); angular deviation in 2-IM was 0.600 degrees and 0.885 degrees for 4-IM. There was no statistically significant difference in the precision of scans between the 2 groups. (P = .161). Although scanning quality improved when 2 scan bodies were used, the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, full-arch implant scanning did not meet acceptable levels of accuracy and precision.

Accuracy of edentulous full-arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best-fit method was then applied in the computer-aided design (CAD) software to compute the three-dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal-Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p < .001) were observed across four impression groups. The SPG group exhibited significantly smaller RMS 3D deviations than the CI, IOS, and MIOS groups (p < .05), with no significant difference detected among the latter three groups (p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant-supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross-arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.