The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

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

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of implant digital scans with different intraoral scanbody shapes and library merging according to different oral exposure height

구내 스캔바디의 형태에 따른 임플란트의 디지털 스캔 정확도 및 구강 내 노출 높이에 따른 라이브러리 중첩 정확도 비교 연구

  • Jeong, Byungjoon (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Lee, Younghoo (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Hong, Seoung-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Paek, Janghyun (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Noh, Kwantae (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Pae, Ahran (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kim, Hyeong-Seob (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University) ;
  • Kwon, Kung-Rock (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University)
  • 정병준 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 이영후 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 홍성진 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 백장현 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 노관태 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 배아란 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 김형섭 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 권긍록 (경희대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2020.09.11
  • Accepted : 2020.11.05
  • Published : 2021.01.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of digital scans of implants according to different shapes of scanbodies, and to compare the accuracy of library merging according to different oral exposure height. Materials and methods: A master model with a single tooth edentulous site was prepared. For the first experiment, three types of intraoral scanbodies were prepared, divided into three groups, and the following experiments were conducted for each group: An internal hex implant was placed. The master model with the scanbody connected was scanned with a model scanner, and a master reference file (control group) was created. 10 files (experimental group) were created by performing 10 consecutive scans with an intraoral scanner. After superimposing the control and experimental groups, the following values were calculated: 1) Distance deviation of a designated point on the scanbody 2) Angle deviation of the major axis of the scanbody. For the second experiment, the scanbody scan data were prepared in 6 different heights. Library files were merged with each of the scan data. The distance and angular deviation were calculated using the 7 mm scan data as control group. Results: In the first experiment, there were no significant differences between A and B (P=.278), B and C (P=.568), and C and A (P=.711) in the distance deviations. There were no significant differences between A and B (P=.568), B and C (P=.546), and C and A (P=.112) in the angular deviations. Also, the scanbody showed significantly higher library merging accuracy in the groups with high oral exposure height (P<.5). Conclusion: There were no significant differences in scan accuracy according to the different shapes of scanbodies, and the accuracy of library merging increased according to exposure height of the scanbody in the oral cavity.

목적: 현재 임상에서 스캔바디를 이용한 임플란트의 디지털 인상이 활용되고 있으나 스캔바디의 형태에 따른 스캔의 정확도에 대한 연구는 부족한 실정이다. 본 연구의 목적은 구내 스캔바디의 형태에 따른 스캔의 정확도를 비교하고, 구강 내 노출 높이에 따른 라이브러리 중첩 정확도를 비교하기 위함이다. 재료 및 방법: 덴티폼 상에서 36번 치아를 삭제 후 모델 스캐너로 스캔하여 3D 프린터로 주모형을 출력하였다. 첫 번째 실험으로 세 종류(A, B, C)의 구내 스캔바디를 준비하여 각 그룹마다 다음과 같은 실험을 하였다: 36번 부위에 임플란트를 이상적인 위치로 식립 후 스캔바디를 15 N으로 체결하였다. 스캔바디가 체결된 주모형을 모델 스캐너로 스캔하여 master reference file (대조군)을 STL (Standard Tessellation Language) file로 생성하였다. 이후 구강 스캐너로 10회의 연속적인 스캔을 시행하여 10개의 STL file (실험군)을 생성하였다. 3D 측정 소프트웨어를 이용하여 대조군과 실험군들의 STL file들을 중첩한 후 좌표계 상에서 다음과 같은 값들을 도출하였다: 1) 스캔바디 상 특정 point의 거리 편차 2) 스캔바디 장축의 각도 편차. 두 번째 실험으로는 스캔바디의 구강내 노출 높이에 따른 라이브러리 중첩 정확도를 비교하기 위해 스캔바디 스캔 데이터를 7, 4.5, 2.5, 1.5, 1.0, 0.5 mm 총 6 가지 높이로 준비하여 라이브러리 파일과 중첩하였다. 전체가 노출된 7 mm 데이터를 대조군으로 하여 거리 편차와 각도 편차를 계산하였다. 결과: 첫번째 실험에서 A, B 스캔바디 간(P = .278), B, C 스캔바디 간(P = .568), C, A 스캔바디 간(P = .711) 스캔 파일의 거리 편차 모두 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. A, B 스캔바디 간(P= .568), B, C 스캔바디 간(P = .546), C, A 스캔바디 간(P = .112) 스캔 파일의 각도 편차 또한 모두 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았다. 또한 스캔바디는 구강 내 노출 높이가 높은 실험군(GH, Gingival Height = 4.5)의 라이브러리 중첩 정확도가 높이가 낮은 실험군(GH = 0.5)보다 통계적으로 유의하게 높았다 (P < .05). 결론: 스캔바디의 각기 다른 형태에 따른 스캔 정확도는 유의한 차이가 없었으며, 스캔바디의 구강 내 노출 높이에 따라 라이브러리 중첩의 정확도는 증가한다. 추후 in vivo 환경에서 더 다양한 형태의 스캔바디를 이용한 후속연구가 필요할 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ramsey CD, Ritter RG. Utilization of digital technologies for fabrication of definitive implant-supported restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24:299-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00481.x
  2. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029
  3. Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001;10:85-92. https://doi.org/10.1097/00008505-200104000-00003
  4. Kim Y, Oh TJ, Misch CE, Wang HL. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:26-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x
  5. Bacchi A, Consani RL, Mesquita MF, Dos Santos MB. Effect of framework material and vertical misfit on stress distribution in implant-supported partial prosthesis under load application: 3-D finite element analysis. Acta Odontol Scand 2013;71:1243-9. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016357.2012.757644
  6. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Chuang SK, Weber HP, Gallucci GO. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:102-10.
  7. Heckmann SM, Karl M, Wichmann MG, Winter W, Graef F, Taylor TD. Cement fixation and screw retention: parameters of passive fit. An in vitro study of three-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures. Clin Oral Implants Res 2004;15:466-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01027.x
  8. Del Corso M, Abà G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J, Dohan Ehrenfest DM. Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2009;11:214-21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2008.00106.x
  9. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Current challenges in successful rehabilitation with oral implants. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:286-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02170.x
  10. Jemt T, Lie A. Accuracy of implant-supported prostheses in the edentulous jaw: analysis of precision of fit between cast gold-alloy frameworks and master casts by means of a three-dimensional photogrammetric technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 1995; 6:172-80. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.1995.060306.x
  11. Goll GE. Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks: Part I-Clinical procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:377-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90266-Y
  12. Akalin ZF, Ozkan YK, Ekerim A. Effects of implant angulation, impression material, and variation in arch curvature width on implant transfer model accuracy. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:149-57. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2070
  13. Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL. Displacement of screw-retained single crowns into implants with conical internal connections. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:803-6. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3005
  14. Gilbert AB, Yilmaz B, Seidt JD, McGlumphy EA, Clelland NL, Chien HH. Three-dimensional displacement of nine different abutments for an implant with an internal hexagon platform. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:781-8. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3678
  15. Moreira AH, Rodrigues NF, Pinho AC, Fonseca JC, Vilaca JL. Accuracy comparison of implant impression techniques: A systematic review. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2015;17:e751-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12310
  16. Rutkunas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, Vaitiekunas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10:101-20.
  17. Howell KJ, McGlumphy EA, Drago C, Knapik G. Comparison of the accuracy of Biomet 3i encode robocast technology and conventional implant impression techniques. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013;28:228-40. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2546
  18. Papaspyridakos P, Chen CJ, Gallucci GO, Doukoudakis A, Weber HP, Chronopoulos V. Accuracy of implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2014;29:836-45. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3625
  19. Brandt J, Lauer HC, Peter T, Brandt S. Digital process for an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis: A clinical report. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:469-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.022
  20. Basaki K, Alkumru H, De Souza G, Finer Y. Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: A three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017;32:792-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.5431
  21. Semper W, Heberer S, Mehrhof J, Schink T, Nelson K. Effects of repeated manual disassembly and reassembly on the positional stability of various implant-abutment complexes: an experimental study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:86-94.