Effect of supramucosal height of a scan body and implant angulation on the accuracy of intraoral scanning: An in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Intraoral scanners (IOSs) provide a digital alternative to conventional implant impression techniques. However, the effect of the supramucosal height of the scan body and implant angulation on the accuracy of IOSs remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the impact of the supramucosal height of the scan body and implant angulation on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral digital implant scans in partially edentulous models. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two maxillary partially edentulous casts with 4 implant analogs were fabricated, 1 with 4 parallel implants (P-groups) and 1 with 2 implants distally inclined 18 degrees (A-groups). An implant scan body was positioned on each implant analog (CARES RC Mono Scanbody). For each cast, 3 subgroups were determined based on the soft tissue moulage fabricated for each reference cast exposing 3 mm (P-3 and A-3 subgroups), 5 mm (P-5 and A-5 subgroups), and 7 mm (P-7 and A-7 subgroups) of the implant scan bodies. The 2 reference casts were registered by using a coordinate measurement machine and desktop scanner (7 Series Dental Wings) and then scanned using an IOS (TRIOS 4) (n=15). Linear and angular discrepancy values and root mean square (RMS) error values between the implant scan bodies measured on the reference and experimental scans were computed with an inspection software program (Geomagic). Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction were applied for planned comparisons (α=.05/9 ≈ .006). RESULTS: For linear discrepancies, statistically significant differences were found between groups P-3 and A-3 (P=.004) and between P-7 and A-7 (P=.005). For angular discrepancies, statistically significant differences were found between groups A-3 and A-5 (P=.002) and between P-7 and A-7 (P=.003). The RMS error analysis found no statistically significant differences among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Implant angulation of 18 degrees did not significantly affect the accuracy of the intraoral scans in terms of 6 of the 9 planned comparisons, although the angled groups had lower mean values. Also, the supramucosal height of the scan body did not significantly affect the accuracy of the intraoral scans in terms of 17 of the 18 planned comparisons. Results may vary with different implant scan body designs.

Clinical evaluation of the effects of cutting off, overlapping, and rescanning procedures on intraoral scanning accuracy.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Cutting off and rescanning procedures have been shown to affect the accuracy of intraoral scanning; however, the clinical impact of tooth cutting off and rescanning of mesh holes on accuracy remains unclear. PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the influence of the tooth location of the rescanned mesh holes (with or without modifying the preexisting intraoral digital mesh with the rescanning procedures) on intraoral scanning accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A maxillary right quadrant digital scan was acquired (control scan) on a dentate participant by using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4). The control scan was duplicated 240 times and distributed among 4 groups depending on the location of the rescanned mesh hole: first molar (M group), second premolar (PM group), canine (C group), and central incisor (I group). Each group was divided into 2 subgroups: one subgroup contained overlapping rescanning modifications (WO subgroup), and the other blocked the preexisting digital scan to avoid further modifications when rescanning (NO subgroup) (n=30). A software program (Geomagic) was used to assess the discrepancy between the control and the experimental meshes by using the root mean square (RMS) error calculation. The Shapiro-Wilk test showed that data were not normally distributed. The Kruskal-Wallis test and post hoc Dunn test with Bonferroni correction were used to analyze the RMS mean discrepancies (α=.05). The Levene test was used to analyze the equality of the variances. RESULTS: Trueness ranged from 15 to 17 µm with a precision of 4 µm among the subgroups in which the existing digital scan was blocked, but the trueness ranged from 42 to 72 µm and the precision ranged from 15 to 47 µm among the subgroups in which the rescanning procedures allowed the modification of the existing digital scan. Significant trueness differences were found among the groups tested (P<.05). Significant differences in the RMS values were computed between the WO and NO subgroups for each group (M (P<.001): PM (P<.001); C (P<.001), and I (P<.001) groups), but the effect of the tooth mesh hole location demonstrated no significant difference either among the WO (P>.999) or NO subgroups (P>.999). Furthermore, the NO groups showed markedly better precision than the WO groups for each tooth location. The I-WO group showed better precision than the groups C-WO, PM-WO, and M-WO. However, when no overlapping was allowed, no difference was found in precision between the different tooth locations tested. CONCLUSIONS: Rescanning procedures influenced intraoral scanning accuracy. Allowing further modification of the preexisting intraoral digital scan demonstrated a significantly decreased scanning accuracy. However, tooth location of the rescanned mesh hole did not impact scanning accuracy.

Digital vs Conventional Full-Arch Implant Impressions: A Retrospective Analysis of 36 Edentulous Jaws.

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of comparative clinical studies assessing the accuracy of full-arch digital scans versus conventional implant impressions. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the three-dimensional (3D) deviations between full-arch digital scans and conventional implant impressions for edentulous maxillae and mandibles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients (36 edentulous jaws) were treated with one-piece, screw-retained implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs). Twenty-one jaws were maxillary, and 15 were mandibular. Full-arch conventional impressions and intraoral digital scans with scan bodies and an intraoral scanner had been taken during the impression phase. Following verification of the conventional stone casts, the casts were digitized. The generated standard tessellation language (STL) files from both impression techniques were merged and analyzed with reverse engineering software. The primary aim was to evaluate the accuracy between conventional and digital full-arch scans, while the effect of the edentulous jaw in 3D accuracy was the secondary aim. RESULTS: The cumulative 3D (mean ± SD) deviations between virtual casts from intraoral full-arch digital scans and digitized stone casts generated from conventional implant impressions were found to be 88 ±24 µm. In the maxillary group, the mean ± SD 3D deviation was 85 ±25 µm, compared to 92 ±23 µm for the mandibular group (p = 0.444). CONCLUSION: The 3D implant deviations found between the full-arch digital and conventional impressions lie within the clinically acceptable threshold. No statistically significant difference was identified between maxillary and mandibular jaws in terms of 3D deviations.

Complete digital workflow for prosthesis prototype fabrication with double digital scanning: A retrospective study with 45 edentulous jaws.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of fit of complete-arch printed prosthesis prototypes generated with a digital workflow protocol for completely edentulous jaws. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five edentulous jaws (35 patients) underwent intraoral complete-arch digital scans with the double digital scanning (DDS) technique and the generated standard tessellation language (STL) files were superimposed and imported into computer-aided design software. After STL merging, each master STL file was used for printing a prosthesis prototype. The primary outcome was the accuracy of fit assessment of the printed prototypes on verified master stone casts. Two experienced clinicians tested the accuracy of fit with radiographs and screw-resistance tests. Secondary outcomes were the effect of the scan body shape and implant number on the accuracy of fit. RESULTS: Out of the 45 DDS-generated prosthesis prototypes, 39 presented with accurate fit on verified master stone casts, yielding an 86.70% accuracy of fit. Cylindrical scan bodies led to 100% accuracy of fit (25/25), whereas polygonal scan bodies presented with 70% accuracy of fit (14/20). Four implant-supported prostheses yielded 100% accuracy of fit (12/12), compared with 25/29 (86.30%) accuracy of fit for the six-implant-supported ones. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the effect of different scan body shapes (p = 0.005) and implant number on accuracy of fit. Chi-squared test was used to assess the association between the number of implants per arch and the accuracy of fit (p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-nine out of 45 complete-arch prosthesis prototypes generated with a completely digital workflow presented with clinically acceptable fit. The effect of the scan body design and implant number was statistically significant, favoring cylindrical scan bodies and four-implant-supported prostheses.

Influence of definitive and interim restorative materials and surface finishing on the scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner.

PURPOSE: To analyze the influence of the restorative material type (definitive and interim) and its surface treatment (polished or glazed) on the scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A mandibular dental typodont containing 3 typodont teeth (left second premolar and left first and second molars) was used for testing. Ten groups were created based on the crown material: typodont tooth (control group), gold (G group), zirconia (Z group), lithium disilicate (LD group), hybrid ceramic (HC group), composite resin (CR group), conventional PMMA (CNV-PMMA group), bis-acryl composite resin (CNV-BA group), milled PMMA (M-PMMA group), and additively manufactured bis-acryl-based polymer (AM-BA group). Except the G group, groups were subdivided into polished (P subgroups) or glazed (G subgroups). Each specimen was digitized by using an extraoral scanner (D1000; 3Shape A/G) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 4; 3Shape). Each reference scan was used to measure the discrepancy with the corresponding 15 intraoral scans by calculating the root mean square (RMS) error (Geomagic; 3D Systems). The Welch ANOVA and Games-Howell tests were selected to examine trueness (α=0.05). The F-test with Bonferroni correction was used to evaluate precision. RESULTS: Significant trueness and precision differences were found (P<.001). The G-P subgroup had the lowest trueness values, while the CNV-PMMA-P, M-PMMA-P, and AM-BA-P subgroups had the highest trueness values. Significant RMS mean discrepancies were computed when comparing polished and glazed specimens fabricated with the same material (P<.001). The CNV-PMMA-G subgroup had the lowest precision values, while the CNV-BA-P subgroup had the highest precision values (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: The type and surface finishing of the restorative materials tested influenced the scanning accuracy of the IOS tested. The lowest trueness values were found in the high noble alloy specimens, while the highest trueness values were measured in conventional and milled PMMA and additively manufactured bis-acryl-based polymer polished specimens. Except for zirconia crowns, higher trueness values were found in polished specimens when compared with glazed crowns. The CNV-PMMA-G subgroup had the lowest precision values, while the highest precision values were measured in the CNV-BA-P subgroup. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Definitive and interim materials tested decrease intraoral scanning accuracy. Furthermore, polishing instead of glazing definitive and interim material assessed might be preferable to maximize intraoral scanning accuracy.

Digital Workflow for Double Complete Arch Zirconia Prostheses Utilizing a Novel Scan Body.

The purpose of this clinical report is to present a complete digital workflow for the fabrication of complete arch fixed zirconia implant restorations. An intraoral scanner was used to capture the implants' position at the abutment level and also the patient's existing interim prostheses with the double digital scanning technique. A novel scan body and impression pin were utilized throughout the scanning process which allowed for the accurate and reproducible superimposition of the generated Standard Tesselation Language (STL) files. Prosthesis prototypes were digitally designed and fabricated, tried in, and verified intraorally. The definitive zirconia prostheses were then fabricated and delivered to the patient. This technique can be utilized in both arches overcoming the absence of stable intraoral landmarks for superimposition of STL files.

Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vivo study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether the cutting-off and rescanning procedures have an impact on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the intraoral digital scan. METHODS: A right quadrant digital scan (reference scan) of a participant was obtained using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 4; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). The reference scan was duplicated 135 times and divided into 3 groups based on the number of rescanned mesh areas: 1 (G1 group), 2 (G2 group), and 3 (G3 group) mesh holes. Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups depending on the mesh hole diameter: 2 mm- (G1-2, G2-2, and G3-2), 4 mm- (G1-4, G2-4, and G3-4), and 6 mm- (G1-6, G2-6, and G3-6) (n = 15). A software program (Geomagic; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) was used to assess the discrepancy between the reference and the experimental scans using the root mean square (RMS). Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc multiple comparison Dunn's tests were used to analyze the data (α=0.05). RESULTS: Trueness ranged from 5 to 20 µm and precision ranged from 2 to 10 µm. For trueness assessment, Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences on the RMS error values among the groups tested (P<.05). The G3-6 group obtained the lowest trueness and lowest precision values, while the G1-2, G1-4, G2-2, G2-4, and G3-2 groups computed the highest trueness and precision values. When comparing groups with the same number of rescanned mesh holes but with different diameter, the higher the diameter of the rescanned mesh hole, the lower the trueness values computed; however, when comparing groups with the same diameter of the rescanned mesh hole but with differing number of rescanned mesh holes, no significant differences were found in the RMS values among the groups. For the precision evaluation, Levene's test showed a lack of equality of the variances, and therefore of the standard deviations. The F-test with Bonferroni correction identified significant differences between the SDs between group G3-6 and all the other groups. When comparing instead the interquartile range (IQRs) due to the non-normality of the data, groups G1 and G2 also showed lower IQR values or higher precision than groups G3. CONCLUSIONS: Cutting-off and rescanning procedures decreased the accuracy of the IOS tested. The higher the number and diameter of the rescanned areas, the lower the accuracy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Cutting-off and rescanning procedures should be minimized in order to increase the accuracy of the IOS evaluated. The intended clinical use of the intraoral digital scan is a critical factor that might determine the scanning workflow procedures.

Accuracy of Guided Implant Surgery in 25 Edentulous Arches: A Laboratory Observational Study.

PURPOSE: To assess the accuracy of template-guided implant surgery for edentulous arches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The stone master casts of 25 edentulous arches treated with either 4 or 6 implants with CBCT generated template-guided surgery were included in this observational cohort study. The stone casts generated from the surgical templates (group one) prior to implant placement were digitized into Standard Tesselation (STL) files with a reference scanner. For comparison, the stone master casts derived from intraoral complete-arch impressions after implant placement (group two) were also digitized. The resultant STL files were superimposed and best-fit-alignment algorithm was used to quantify the 3D deviations present between the two groups. Descriptive statistics were computed for all categorical variables. Due to the presence of nonindependent samples between maxillary and mandibular casts, a mixed-effects model was used. RESULTS: Deviations between the implant analogs of the stone casts representing digitally planned versus actually placed implants were found. The mean root-mean-square error (RMSE) between all 25 arches was found to be 0.2 mm (SD ± 0.15). The mean RMSE between presurgical and postsurgical maxillary stone casts were 0.19 ± 0.15 mm, while between mandibular stone casts were 0.21 ± 0.16 mm and were not significant (p = 0.67). The mean RMSE between presurgical and postsurgical stone casts arches with 4 versus 6 implants were found to be significant (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: According to the results of the study and based on the amount of 3D deviations between the digitally planned implant positions and the actually placed implants, template-guided surgery is a safe treatment modality for implant placement in edentulous arches.