The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An in vitro study

  • Received : 2021.01.25
  • Accepted : 2021.04.05
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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 14-mm 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Shenoy VK. Single tooth implants: Pretreatment considerations and pretreatment evaluation. J Interdiscip Dent 2012;2:149-57. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5194.113239
  2. Misch CE. Dental implant prosthetics. 2nd ed. St. Louis; Elsevier; 2015.
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Buzayan MM, Yunus NB. Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014;14:16-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13191-013-0343-x
  6. 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
  7. Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital implant impression technique accuracy: a systematic review. Implant Dent 2017;26:929-35. https://doi.org/10.1097/id.0000000000000683
  8. Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2016;27:465-72.
  9. Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:111-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02430.x
  10. Gallardo YR, Bohner L, Tortamano P, Pigozzo MN, Lagana DC, Sesma N. Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:214-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.07.007
  11. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int Dent J 2018;3761750.
  12. Ajioka H, Kihara H, Odaira C, Kobayashi T, Kondo H. Examination of the position accuracy of implant abutments reproduced by intra-oral optical impression. PLoS One 2016:11:e0164048. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0164048
  13. Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-10
  14. Seelbach P, Brueckel C, Wostmann B. Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:1759-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0864-4
  15. Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:1360-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12994
  16. Cappare P, Sannino G, Minoli M, Montemezzi P, Ferrini F. Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16:829. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050829
  17. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26:101-21.
  18. Jivanescu A, Rotar P, Hategan S, Pricop C, Rus R, Goguta L. Clinical factors influence the trueness of intra-oral scanning. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2019;27:51-5.
  19. 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
  20. Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, Suzuki T, Minakuchi S. Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:324-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.12.005
  21. Mangano FG, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Imburgia M, Mangano C, Admakin O. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:101. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0792-7
  22. Braian M, Wennerberg A. Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: a comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2019;122:129-136.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.007
  23. Ender A, Mehl A. Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2011;14:11-21.
  24. Ender A, Mehl A. In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17.
  25. Flugge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:374-92.
  26. Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:450-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2017.01.005
  27. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4
  28. Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017; 28:648-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.12853
  29. Eliasson A, Ortorp A. The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012;14:e30-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00344.x
  30. 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
  31. Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, 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. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31:625-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13598
  32. Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Tsagarakis A, Kourakis G, Pavlakis E. A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:581-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.023
  33. Tahmaseb A, Wu V, Wismeijer D, Coucke W, Evans C. The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2018;29:416-35.
  34. Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2020;29:309-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13131
  35. Waldecker M, Rues S, Rammelsberg P, Bomicke W. Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: a comparative in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020:S0022-3913(20)30298-5.
  36. Ashraf Y, Sabet A, Hamdy A, Ebeid K. Influence of preparation type and tooth geometry on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont 2020;29:800-4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13202
  37. Park JM, Kim RJ, Lee KW. Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:113-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.025
  38. O'Toole S, Osnes C, Bartlett D, Keeling A. Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment. Dent Mater 2019;35:495-500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.01.012
  39. Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:121-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60028-1
  40. Renne W, Ludlow M, Fryml J, Schurch Z, Mennito A, Kessler R, Lauer A. Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:36-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.024
  41. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:8427595.
  42. Amornvit P, Rokaya D, Peampring C, Sanohkan S. Confocal 3D optical intraoral scanners and comparison of image capturing accuracy. Comput Mater Contin 2021;66:303-14.
  43. van der Meer WJ, Andriessen FS, Wismeijer D, Ren Y. Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology. PLoS One 2012;7:e43312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043312