The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The effect of the improperly scanned scan body images on the accuracy of virtual implant positioning in computer-aided design software

  • Park, Se-Won (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Choi, Yong-Do (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Du-Hyeong (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2019.11.26
  • Accepted : 2020.04.29
  • Published : 2020.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. The aim of this study was to examine the importance of the defect-free scanning of a scan body by assessing the accuracy of virtual implant positioning in computer-aided design (CAD) software when the scan body image is improperly scanned. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A scan body was digitized in a dentiform model using an intraoral scanner, and scanned images with differing levels of image deficiency were generated: 5%, 10%, and 15% deficiency in the flat or rounded area. Using a best-fit image matching algorithm on each of the deficient scan body images, corresponding virtual implants were created. The accuracy of the implant position was evaluated by comparing the linear and angular discrepancies between the actual and virtual positions of the implant. Kruskal-Wallis tests and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction were used to determine the statistical differences among the seven scanned image deficiency groups (α=.05). RESULTS. In general, the linear and angular discrepancies of the implant position in the software increased as the deficiency of the scan body images increased. A 15% scan body image deficiency generated larger discrepancies than deficiency of 5% and 10%. The difference of scan defect position, flat or rounded area, did not affect the accuracy of virtual implant orientation at 5% and 10% deficiency level, but did affect the accuracy at 15% deficiency level. CONCLUSION. Deficiencies in the scanned images of a scan body can decrease the accuracy of the implant positioning in CAD software when the defect is large, thus leading to the incorrect fabrication of implant prostheses.

Keywords

References

  1. Christensen GJ. Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 2008;139:761-3. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0258
  2. Di Fiore A, Vigolo P, Graiff L, Stellini E. Digital vs conventional workflow for screw-retained single-implant crowns: A comparison of key considerations. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:577-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5938
  3. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Evaluation of operating time and patient perception using conventional impression taking and intraoral scanning for crown manufacture: A split-mouth, randomized clinical study. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:55-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5405
  4. Winstanley RB, Carrotte PV, Johnson A. The quality of impressions for crowns and bridges received at commercial dental laboratories. Br Dent J 1997;183:209-13. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4809468
  5. Christensen GJ. Impressions are changing: deciding on conventional, digital or digital plus in-office milling. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140:1301-4. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0054
  6. Londono J, Abreu A, Baker PS, Furness AR. Fabrication of a definitive obturator from a 3D cast with a chairside digital scanner for a patient with severe gag reflex: a clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:735-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.01.019
  7. Millstein PL. Determining the accuracy of gypsum casts made from type IV dental stone. J Oral Rehabil 1992;19:239-43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1992.tb01098.x
  8. Kim M, Kim J, Mai HN, Kwon TY, Choi YD, Lee CH, Lee DH. Comparative clinical study of the marginal discrepancy of fixed dental prosthesis fabricated by the milling-sintering method using a presintered alloy. J Adv Prosthodont 2019;11:280-5. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2019.11.5.280
  9. Grunheid T, McCarthy SD, Larson BE. Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: an assessment of accuracy, time, and patient acceptance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:673-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023
  10. Flugge TV, Schlager S, Nelson K, Nahles S, Metzger MC. Precision of intraoral digital dental impressions with iTero and extraoral digitization with the iTero and a model scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;144:471-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.04.017
  11. Jeon JH, Hwang SS, Kim JH, Kim WC. Trueness and precision of scanning abutment impressions and stone models according to dental CAD/CAM evaluation standards. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10:335-9. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2018.10.5.335
  12. Guth JF, Keul C, Stimmelmayr M, Beuer F, Edelhoff D. Accuracy of digital models obtained by direct and indirect data capturing. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1201-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0795-0
  13. Pan S, Guo D, Zhou Y, Jung RE, Hammerle CHF, Muhlemann S. Time efficiency and quality of outcomes in a model-free digital workflow using digital impression immediately after implant placement: A double-blind self-controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:617-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13447
  14. Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e902-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12764
  15. 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;26:34-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12362
  16. Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12375
  17. Keeling A, Wu J, Ferrari M. Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan. J Dent 2017;59:33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.003
  18. Kim JH, Kim KB, Kim SH, Kim WC, Kim HY, Kim JH. Quantitative evaluation of common errors in digital impression obtained by using an LED blue light in-office CAD/CAM system. Quintessence Int 2015;46:401-7. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a33685
  19. Lee DH. Digital approach to assessing the 3-dimensional misfit of fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2016;116:836-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.05.012
  20. Chen Y, Medioni G. Object modelling by registration of multiple range images. Image Vision Comput 1992;10:145-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0262-8856(92)90066-C
  21. Kim JE, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim JS. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:755-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.016
  22. Seo SW, Lee WS, Byun JY, Lee KB. A standardization model based on image recognition for performance evaluation of an oral scanner. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:409-15. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.6.409
  23. Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010
  24. Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Effect of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:375-6. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5781
  25. Pesce P, Pera F, Setti P, Menini M. Precision and accuracy of a digital impression scanner in full-arch implant rehabilitation. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:171-5. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.5535
  26. Koch GK, Gallucci GO, Lee SJ. Accuracy in the digital workflow: From data acquisition to the digitally milled cast. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:749-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.004
  27. Boeddinghaus M, Breloer ES, Rehmann P, Wostmann B. Accuracy of single-tooth restorations based on intraoral digital and conventional impressions in patients. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2027-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1430-7
  28. Kim RJ, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:895-903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.01.035
  29. Hayama H, Fueki K, Wadachi J, Wakabayashi N. Trueness and precision of digital impressions obtained using an intraoral scanner with different head size in the partially edentulous mandible. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:347-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2018.01.003
  30. Medina-Sotomayor P, Pascual-Moscardo A, Camps I. Accuracy of four digital scanners according to scanning strategy in complete-arch impressions. PLoS One 2018;13:e0202916. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202916
  31. Muller P, Ender A, Joda T, Katsoulis J. Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. Quintessence Int 2016;47:343-9.
  32. Gimenez B, Ozcan M, Martinez-Rus F, Pradies G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e54-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12124

Cited by

  1. The Effect of Perioral Scan and Artificial Skin Markers on the Accuracy of Virtual Dentofacial Integration: Stereophotogrammetry Versus Smartphone Three-Dimensional Face-Scanning vol.18, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010229
  2. Evaluation of the Trueness of Digital Implant Impressions According to the Implant Scan Body Orientation and Scanning Method vol.11, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11073027
  3. The Influence of Laboratory Scanner Versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining the Implant Axis by Using Three Different Scan Abutments vol.11, pp.18, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11188543