Odovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences ISSN Impreso: 1659-1046 ISSN electrónico: 2215-3411

OAI: https://www.revistas.ucr.ac.cr/index.php/Odontos/oai
Evaluation the Scanning Accuracy of Blue-Light Laboratory Scanners in Complete Edentulous Maxilla with Multiple Implants with Titanium Scan Bodies
PDF
HTML
EPUB

Keywords

Digitalization; Scan accuracy; Laboratory scanners; Titanium scan body; Multi-unit abutment; Complete arch.
Digitalización; Precisión de escaneado; Escáneres de laboratorio; Cuerpo de escaneado de titanio; Pilar de varias unidades; Arcada completa.

How to Cite

Ezmek, B., & Sipahi, O. C. (2023). Evaluation the Scanning Accuracy of Blue-Light Laboratory Scanners in Complete Edentulous Maxilla with Multiple Implants with Titanium Scan Bodies. Odovtos - International Journal of Dental Sciences, 25(3), 55–66. https://doi.org/10.15517/ijds.2023.54635

Abstract

To evaluate the accuracy of complete arch scanning with multiple implant titanium scan bodies using laboratory scanners. A master model of an edentulous maxillary arch with 6 implants was fabricated. Titanium scan bodies were inserted into the model. Three laboratory scanners were used: D2000 (3Shape), Vinyl High Resolution (Smart Optics), and inEos X5 (Dentsply Sirona). The master model was consecutively scanned ten times using dental laboratory scanners (LS) without detaching and repositioning the scan bodies. Linear and angular accuracy between adjacent implants was measured using inspection software (Control X, Geomagic). The accuracy of the complete arch scans was calculated. Implant regions were defined as; parallel (R1: #24-26 and #16-14), angled (R2: #22-24 and #14-12), angled to occlusal plane (R3: #12-22), and cross-arch (R4: #16-26). The effect of LS and implant region on accuracy was compared using two-Way ANOVA (α=0.05). Significant greater linear distortion was noted in R4 (61.2±17.9µm) compared to R1 (23.4±15.5µm) and R2 (26±17.7µm) (p<0.01). Greater linear distortions were noted in R4 with D2000 (0.07±0.016 degrees) and Vinyl High Resolution (0.067±0.02 degrees) than inEos X5 (0.032±0.021 degrees) (p>0.05). Greater mean linear precisions were noted in R1 (9±8µm) and R3 (9.3±8.3µm) than R4 (12.6±10.3µm) (p<0.05). The highest linear precision was noted in D2000 (7.2±7.6µm) (p<0.05). The angular precision of D2000 (0.02±0.015 degrees) was the highest (p<0.01). The angular precision of R4 (0.036±0.018 degrees) was the lowest (p<0.01). This study revealed that the trueness was affected by the implant region and the precision was affected by both LS and implant region.

https://doi.org/10.15517/ijds.2023.54635
PDF
HTML
EPUB

References

Simonis P., Dufour T., Tenenbaum H. Long-term implant survival and success: a 10-16-year follow-up of non-submerged dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010; 21: 772-7.

Carlson B., Carleson G.E. Prosthodontic complications in osseointegrated dental implant treatment. Implant Dent. 1994; 3 (4): 264.

Papaspyridakos P., Benic G.I., Hogsett V.L., White G.S., Lal K., Gallucci G.O. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: An optical scanning study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23 (6): 676-81.

Hebel K.S., Gajjar R.C. Cement-retained versus screw-retained implant restorations: Achieving optimal occlusion and esthetics in implant dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 77 (1): 28-35.

Da Rocha P.V.B., Freitas M.A., De Morais Alves Da Cunha T. Influence of screw access on the retention of cement-retained implant prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109 (4): 264-8.

Kwon T., Bain P.A., Levin L. Systematic review of short- (5-10 years) and long-term (10 years or more) survival and success of full-arch fixed dental hybrid prostheses and supporting implants. J Dent. 2014; 42 (10): 1228-41.

Kapos T., Evans C. CAD/CAM Technology for Implant Abutments, Crowns, and Superstructures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2014; 29: 117-36.

Kim K.R., Seo K. young, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 122 (6): 543-9.

Knechtle N., Wiedemeier D., Mehl A., Ender A. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 128 (3): 468-478.

Mizumoto R.M., Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry : A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018; 120 (3): 343-52.

Huang R., Liu Y., Huang B., Chen Z., Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies : An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. 2020; 31: 625-33.

Fluegge T., Att W., Metzger M., Nelson K. A Novel Method to Evaluate Precision of Optical Implant Impressions with Commercial Scan Bodies-An Experimental Approach. J Prosthodont. 2017; 26 (1): 34-41.

Fokas G., Ma L., Chronopoulos V., Mattheos N. Differences in micromorphology of the implant e abutment junction for original and third-party abutments on a representative dental implant. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121 (1): 143-50.

Giménez B., Özcan M., Martinez-Rus F., Pradies G. Accuracy of a Digital Impression System Based on Parallel Confocal Laser Technology for Implants with Consideration of Operator Experience and Implant Angulation and Depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2014; 29: 853-62.

Rutkunas V., Gečiauskaite A., Jegelevičius D., Vaitiekunas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implant. 2017; 10: 101-20.

Wulfman C., Naveau A., Rignon-Bret C. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124 (2): 161-7.

Assunção W.G., Britto R.C., Ricardo Barão V.A., Delben J.A., Dos Santos P.H. Evaluation of Impression Accuracy for Implant at Various Angulations. Implant Dent. 2010; 19 (2): 167-74.

Abdel-azim T., Zandinejad A., Elathamna E., Lin W., Morton D. The Influence of Digital Fabrication Options on the Accuracy of Dental Implant-Based Single Units and Complete-Arch Frameworks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2014; 29 (6): 1281-8.

Conrad H.J., Pesun I.J., DeLong R., Hodges J.S. Accuracy of two impression techniques with angulated implants. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 97 (6): 349-56.

Menini M., Setti P., Pera F., Pera P., Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression : traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Invest. 2018; 22 (3): 1253-62.

Fernandez M.A., Mendoza C.Y.P. De, Platt J.A., Levon J.A., Hovijitra S.T., Nimmo A. A Comparative Study of the Accuracy between Plastic and Metal Impression Transfer Copings for Implant Restorations. J Prosthod. 2013; 22: 367-76.

Braian M., Bruyn C.D.T.H. De, Fransson H., Christersson C., Wennerberg A. Tolerance Measurements on Internal- and External-Hexagon Implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2014; 29 (4): 846-52.

Ender A., Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-Arch dental impressions: A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109 (2): 121-8.

Emir F., Ayyıldız S. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of eight extraoral laboratory scanners with a complete-arch model: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019; 63 (4): 434-9.

Renne W., Ludlow M., Fryml J., Schurch Z., Mennito A., Kessler R., et al. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 118 (1): 36-42.

González de Villaumbrosia P., Martínez-Rus F., García-Orejas A., Salido M.P., Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116 (4): 543-550.e1.

Pan Y., Tam J.M.Y., Tsoi J.K.H., Lam W.Y.H., Pow E.H.N. Reproducibility of laboratory scanning of multiple implants in complete edentulous arch: Effect of scan bodies. J Dent. 2020; 96 (January): 103329.

Chia V.A., Rcsed M.R.D., Esguerra R.J., Teoh K.H., Juin F, Teo W, et al. In Vitro Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions : The Effect of Implant Angulation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2017; 32 (2): 313-21.

Pan Y., Tam J.M., Tsoi J.K., Lam W.Y., Huang R., Chen Z., et al. Evaluation of laboratory scanner accuracy by a novel calibration block for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. J Dent. 2020; 102: 103476.

Tan M.Y., Sophia M.D.S., Xin H., Keng M.D.S., Wong M., Tan Y.H., et al. Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions : Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2019; 34 (2): 366-80.

Cho S., Schaefer O., Thompson G.A., Guentsch A. Comparison of accuracy and reproducibility of casts made by digital and conventional methods. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 113 (4): 310-5.

Ender A., Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions : A new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013; 109 (2): 121-8.

Winter W., Mohrle S., Holst S., Karl M. Bone loading caused by different types of misfits of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a three-dimensional finite element analysis based on experimental results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant. 2010; 25 (5): 947-52.

Olea-vielba M., Jare D., Methani M.M. Accuracy of the Implant Replica Positions on the Complete Edentulous Additive Manufactured Cast. J Prosthod. 2020; 29 (9): 780-6.

Thanasrisuebwong P., Kulchotirat T., Anunmana C. Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner : An in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021; 21 (13): 107-16.

Lee S.J., Kim S.W., Lee J.J., Cheong C.W. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral digital scanners: Evaluation of surface topography and precision. Dent J. 2020; 8 (2): 52.

Ebeid K., Nouh I., Ashraf Y., Cesar P. F. Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2022; 34 (5): 843-848.

Güth J.F., Runkel C., Beuer F., Stimmelmayr M., Edelhoff D., Keul C. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 21 (5): 1445-55.

Comments

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright (c) 2023 CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.