The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Accuracy of 14 intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept: a comparative in vitro study

  • Gozde, Kaya (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Trakya University) ;
  • Caglar, Bilmenoglu (Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Trakya University)
  • Received : 2022.06.24
  • Accepted : 2022.12.01
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 14 different intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four implants were placed in regions 13, 16, 23, and 26 of an edentulous maxillary model that was poured with scannable Type 4 gypsum to imitate the All-on-4 concept. The cast was scanned 10 times for each of 14 intraoral scanners (Primescan, iTero 2, iTero 5D, Virtuo Vivo, Trios 3, Trios 4, CS3600, CS3700, Emerald, Emerald S, Medit i500, BenQ BIS-I, Heron IOS, and Aadva IOS 100P) after the polyether ether ketone scanbody was placed. For the control group, the gypsum model was scanned 10 times with an industrial scanner. The first of the 10 virtual models obtained from the industrial model was chosen as the reference model. For trueness, the data of the 14 dental scanners were superimposed with the reference model; for precision, the data of all 14 scanners were superimposed within the groups. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilks, and Dunn's tests. RESULTS. Primescan showed the highest trueness and precision values (P < .005), followed by the iTero 5D scanner (P < .005). CONCLUSION. Some of these digital scanners can be used to make impressions within the All-on-4 concept. However, the possibility of data loss due to artifacts, reflections, and the inability to combine the data should be considered.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The work was supported by the Research Fund of Trakya University. Project No. 2020/126.

References

  1. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Botto J. The All-on-4 treatment concept for the rehabilitation of the completely edentulous mandible: A longitudinal study with 10 to 18 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:565-77.
  2. Malo P, de Araujo Nobre M, Lopes A, Ferro A, Nunes M. The All-on-4 concept for full-arch rehabilitation of the edentulous maxillae: A longitudinal study with 5-13 years of follow-up. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2019;21:538-49.
  3. Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10:121-38.
  4. Tohme H, Lawand G, Chmielewska M, Makhzoume J. Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2021 Jun 7;S0022-3913(21)00269-9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.006. Online ahead of print.
  5. Di Fiore A, Graiff L, Savio G, Granata S, Basilicata M, Bollero P, Meneghello R. Investigation of the accuracy of four intraoral scanners in mandibular full-arch digital implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2022;19:4719.
  6. Schmidt A, Wostmann B, Schlenz MA. Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2022;33:573-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.13951
  7. Chen SY, Liang WM, Chen FN. Factors affecting the accuracy of elastometric impression materials. J Dent 2004;32:603-9.
  8. Nissan J, Laufer BZ, Brosh T, Assif D. Accuracy of three polyvinyl siloxane putty-wash impression techniques. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83:161-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(00)80007-4
  9. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020; 123:96-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.01.003
  10. Keul C, Guth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24:735-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2
  11. Di Fiore A, Meneghello R, Graiff L, Savio G, Vigolo P, Monaco C, Stellini E. Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2019;63:396-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:755-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.017
  15. Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, Zechner W, Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res 2020;64:128-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001
  16. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 5725-1. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: General principles and definitions. Geneva; 1994.
  17. Nedelcu RG, Persson AS. Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2014;112:1461-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.027
  18. Ongul D, Gokcen-Rohlig B, Sermet B, Keskin H. A comparative analysis of the accuracy of different direct impression techniques for multiple implants. Aust Dent J 2012;57:184-9.
  19. Naini RB, Nokar S, Borghei H, Alikhasi M. Tilted or parallel implant placement in the completely edentulous mandible? A three-dimensional finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2011;26:776-81.
  20. De Rossi M, Santos CM, Miglioranca R, Regalo SC. All on Four® fixed implant support rehabilitation: a masticatory function study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2014;16:594-600. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12031
  21. Soni R, Yadav H, Pathak A, Bhatnagar A, Kumar V. Comparative evaluation of biting force and chewing efficiency of all-on-four treatment concept with other treatment modalities in completely edentulous individuals. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20:312-20. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_464_19
  22. Taruna M, Chittaranjan B, Sudheer N, Tella S, Abusaad M. Prosthodontic perspective to all-on-4® concept for dental implants. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:ZE16-9.
  23. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T. Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 2009;12:11-28.
  24. 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
  25. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S. Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 2005;8:283-94.
  26. Steinhauser-Andresen S, Detterbeck A, Funk C, Krumm M, Kasperl S, Holst A, Hirschfelder U. Pilot study on accuracy and dimensional stability of impression materials using industrial CT technology. J Orofac Orthop 2011;72:111-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-011-0015-6
  27. Revilla-Leon M, Gohil A, Barmak AB, Zandinejad A, Raigrodski AJ, Alonso Perez-Barquero J. Best-fit algorithm influences on virtual casts' alignment discrepancies. J Prosthodont 2022 May 7. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13537. Online ahead of print.
  28. Patzelt SB, Emmanouilidi A, Stampf S, Strub JR, Att W. Accuracy of full-arch scans using intraoral scanners. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1687-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1132-y
  29. Diker B, Tak O. Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:187-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.12.007
  30. Mangano FG, Admakin O, Bonacina M, Lerner H, Rutkunas V, Mangano C. Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:263.
  31. 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.
  32. Roth I, Czigola A, Feher D, Vitai V, Joos-Kovacs GL, Hermann P, Borbely J, Vecsei B. Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria. BMC Oral Health 2022;22:140.