Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study (original) (raw)
Related papers
Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study
PloS one
The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners used in oral implantology. Two stone models were prepared, representing a partially and a totally edentulous maxilla, with three and six implant analogues, respectively, and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cylinders screwed on. The models were digitized with an industrial scanner (IScan D104I®) used as a reference, and with four intraoral scanners (Trios®; CS 3500®; Zfx Intrascan®; Planscan®). Five scans were taken for each model, using each different intraoral scanner. All datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software (Geomagics 2012®), where intraoral scans were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate general trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to evaluate general precision. General trueness and precision of any scanner were compared by model type, through an ANOVA model including scanner, model and their interaction. Finally, the distance and angles betwe...
Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study
BMC Oral Health
Background The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression. Methods A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Mat...
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
Background: We compare the accuracy of new intraoral scanners (IOSs) in full-arch digital implant impressions. Methods: A master model with six scan bodies was milled in poly(methyl methacrylate), measured by using a coordinate measuring machine, and scanned 15 times with four IOSs: PrimeScan, Medit i500, Vatech EZ scan, and iTero. The software was developed to identify the position points on each scan body. The 3D position and distance analysis were performed. Results: The average and ± standard deviation of the 3D position analysis was 29 μm ± 6 μm for PrimeScan, 39 μm ± 6 μm for iTero, 48 μm ± 18 μm for Mediti500, and 118 μm ± 24 μm for Vatech EZ scan (p < 0.05). Conclusions: All IOSs are able to make a digital complete implant impression in vitro according to the average misfit value reported in literature (150 μm); however, the 3D distance analysis showed that only the Primescan and iTero presented negligible systematic error sources.
Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An in vitro study
The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics
PURPOSE. Several studies focused on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners in implant dentistry, but the data of inter-implant distances were not widely mentioned. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of distance between two implants on the surface distortion of scanned models generated by intra-oral scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three models with the distances between two fixed scan bodies of 7, 14, and 21 mm were fabricated and scanned with a highly precise D900L dental laboratory scanner as reference models. Fifteen scans were performed with TRIOS3 and CEREC Omnicam intra-oral scanners. Trueness, precision, and angle deviation of the test models were analyzed (α=.05). RESULTS. There was a significant difference among inter-implant distances in both intraoral scanners (P <.001). The error of trueness and precision increased with the increasing inter-implant length, while the angle deviation did not show the same trend. A significant difference in the angle deviation was found among the inter-implant distance. The greatest angle deviation was reported in the 14mm group of both scanners (P <.05). In contrast, the lowest angle deviation in the 21-mm group of the TR scanner and the 7-mm of the CR scanner was reported (P <.001). CONCLUSION. The inter-implant distance affected the accuracy of intra-oral scanner. The error of trueness and precision increased along with the increasing distance between two implants. However, the distortions were not clinically significant. Regarding angle deviation, the clinically significant angle deviation may be possible when using intra-oral scanners in the partially edentulous arch. [
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 2020
Background: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of digital impression techniques for implant-supported restorations, and to assess their economic feasibility. Material and Methods: Two independent electronic database searches were conducted in the Pubmed/MedLine, Cochrane Library, and Lilacs databases complimented by a manual search, selecting relevant clinical and in vitro studies published between 1st January 2009 and 28st February 2019. All type of studies (in vivo and in vitro) were included in this systematic review. Results: Twenty-seven studies (8 in vivo and 19 in vitro studies) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. No meta-analysis was performed due to a large heterogeneity of the study protocols. The passive fit of superstructures on dental implants presented similar results between digital and conventional impression techniques. The studies considered that several factors influence the accuracy of implant impression taking: distance and angulation between implants, depth of placement, type of scanner, scanning strategy, characteristics of scanbody, and operator experience. Regarding the economic viability of intraoral scanning systems, only one study reported any benefit in comparison with conventional techniques. Conclusions: Digital impressions of dental implants can be considered a viable alternative in cases of one or two contiguous dental implants. However, more studies are needed to evaluate the accuracy of digital techniques in full-arch implant-supported restorations.
Statement of problem. The effect of additional reference objects on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners for partially and completely edentulous patients has not been investigated sufficiently. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of an additional reference object in the form of additional artificial landmarks on the trueness and precision of different intraoral scanners in partially and completely edentulous areas. Material and methods. Partially and completely edentulous models with 2 and 4 implants (BLT, RC, Institut Straumann AG), respectively, were used in the study. For the digital scan, scan bodies (CARES Mono Scanbody) were attached, and reference data obtained by using industrial scanners. Ten digital scans of the same model were made with each intraoral scanner: PRIMESCAN, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4, Carestream 3600, and Medit. Then, additional artificial landmarks were attached, and 10 more intraoral scans were made with each device. Computer-aided design files of the scan bodies were aligned to obtain 3-dimensional surfaces with reference and test scanners. Trueness and precision of distance, angulations, and vertical shift between scan bodies were estimated. The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon or Student 2-sample t test was applied to estimate statistically significant differences between groups (a=.05). Results. In the partially edentulous model, distance trueness mean ±standard deviation values ranged from −46.7 ±15.4 mm (TRIOS 3) to 392.1 ±314.3 mm (Medit) in models without additional artificial landmarks. When additional artificial landmarks were applied, trueness of distance mean ±standard deviation values ranged between −35 ±13 mm (TRIOS 4) and 117.7 ±232.3 mm (CARESTREAM). Trueness mean ±standard deviation values of angulation varied from −0.0 ±0.5 degrees (CARESTREAM) to 0.2 ±0.0 degrees (PRIMESCAN) without additional artificial landmarks and from 0.0 ±0.2 degrees (TRIOS 3) to 0.4 ±0.5 degrees (CARESTREAM) with additional artificial landmarks. Vertical shift trueness measurements varied from −108 ±47.1 mm (TRIOS 4) to 107.2 ±103.5 mm (Medit) without additional artificial landmarks and from −15.0 ±45.0 mm (CARESTREAM) to −86.9 ±42.1 mm (TRIOS 4) with additional artificial landmarks. The additional artificial landmark technique improved the trueness of all measured parameters for the 5 tested intraoral scanners. No statistically significant differences were found among models with or without additional artificial landmarks, except for Medit in all parameters and PRIMESCAN in angle measurements (P<.05). The best precision for distance was found with TRIOS 3 and with PRIMESCAN for angulation and vertical shift. Larger deviations were observed in the completely edentulous situation. The effect of additional artificial landmarks was limited when the accuracy parameters of digital scans were considered. Conclusions. Scans with and without additional artificial landmarks of partially edentulous conditions scanned by any of the intraoral scanners tested did not influence precision and trueness, except for Medit i500 in the distance and vertical shift parameters and CARESTREAM3600 in vertical shift. Precision and trueness of digital scans of completely edentulous areas were affected, except for Medit i500 for distance, PRIMESCAN and TRIOS 4 for angle, and all systems except TRIOS 4 for vertical shift precision.
International Journal of Prosthodontics, 2023
To determine the effects of scanning protocol, number of implants, and implant splinting on the accuracy of digital scanning in the edentulous arch. Materials and Methods: A resin-based model of an edentulous mandible with six implants was scanned with a coordinate measurement machine as a reference and then with two intraoral scanner (IOS) systems (TRIOS 3 and Primescan). Ten scans were taken per IOS in three experiments, and each scan was compared to the reference to evaluate trueness and precision. Analysis involved using engineering software (GOM Inspect) to measure linear and angular discrepancies. In experiment 1, three scanning protocols were compared (linear, zigzag, and half-arch). In experiment 2, three clinical situations were simulated. In experiment 3, the effect of implant splinting with a suture thread was measured. Normal distribution of data was examined with Shapiro-Wilk test. Levene test was used for equality of variance (α = .05). Statistical differences in distance and angular deviations were analyzed by Student t test or ANOVA with post hoc Tukey test (α = .05). Results: The best results in terms of trueness and precision were obtained This peer-reviewed, accepted manuscript will undergo final editing and production prior to publication in IJP.
Medicina
Background and Objectives: With the increased trend towards digitalization in dentistry, intraoral scanning has, to a certain extent, replaced conventional impressions in particular clinical settings. Trueness and precision are essential traits for optical impressions but have so far been incompletely explored. Materials and Methods: We performed a study to evaluate the differences in the three-dimensional spatial orientations of implant analogs on a stone cast when using an intraoral scanner compared to a dental laboratory scanner. We assessed the deviation of the intraoral scans compared to the laboratory scan for three standardized implant measurement plans and compared these results with control scans of the neighboring natural teeth. Results: We found no statistically significant correlation between the measurements at the scan body level and the landmarks chosen as controls on the neighboring natural teeth (p = 0.198). The values for the implant scans presented wider variation...
2023
Intraoral scanning has recently been investigated showing high accuracy in complete implant supported cases. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning techniques for implant level impression versus abutment level impression techniques in patients with mandibular supported overdenture. Methods: Ready-made scannable foam cast of completely edentulous mandible was scanned using the extraoral scanner representing an edentulous mandible where four implant were placed. This cast was used as the control group; which was used to fabricate one cast with the implant level impression technique and the other to fabricate cast with abutment level impression technique as interventions. For both interventions; Digital intraoral scans (DIOS) were made after connecting implant level scan bodies to the master cast and STL files were exported to be used in the superimposition by a MEDIT COMPARE software for determining the accuracy of both techniques. Results: There was a statistically significant difference between (Implant level) and (Abutment level) where (p=0.008). Conclusion: The implant level impression technique is more accurate than the abutment level impression technique when using Digital intraoral scanning.