The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Comparison of 3D accuracy of three different digital intraoral scanners in full-arch implant impressions

  • Ozcan Akkal (Department of Prosthodontics, Ataturk University Faculty of Dentistry) ;
  • Ismail Hakki Korkmaz (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Erzurum Technical University) ;
  • Funda Bayindir (Department of Prosthodontics, Ataturk University Faculty of Dentistry)
  • Received : 2023.04.12
  • Accepted : 2023.08.21
  • Published : 2023.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0°, 5°, 0°, 0°, 15°, and 0° in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured. RESULTS. While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 ㎛, the values of 104 ㎛ and 171 ㎛ were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively (P = .001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners (P < .001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185°, the values of 0.499° and 1.250° were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values (P > .05). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: a review. J Prosthodont 2018;27:35-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12527
  2. Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz IH, Bayindir F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont 2021;30:163-70. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13264
  3. 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.
  4. Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.011
  5. Dutton E, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Culp A, Kessler R, Renne W. The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners. J Esthet Restor Dent 2020;32:204-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12528
  6. 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.
  7. Revilla-Leon M, Jiang P, Sadeghpour M, Piedra-Cascon W, Zandinejad A, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Intraoral digital scans: part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:575-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.06.004
  8. Revilla-Leon M, Subramanian SG, Ozcan M, Krishnamurthy VR. Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of an Intraoral Scanner. J Prosthodont 2020;29:107-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13135
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsky E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. PLoS One 2016;11:e0163107.
  13. Kamimura E, Tanaka S, Takaba M, Tachi K, Baba K. In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques. PLoS One 2017;12:e0179188.
  14. 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 Suppl 1:e54-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.12124
  15. Latham J, Ludlow M, Mennito A, Kelly A, Evans Z, Renne W. Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:85-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.02.008
  16. 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
  17. Sorrentino R, Gherlone EF, Calesini G, Zarone F. Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2010;12 Suppl 1:e63-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00167.x
  18. Osman MS, Ziada HM, Abubakr NH, Suliman AM. Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants: a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques. Int J Implant Dent 2019;5:4.
  19. Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Ozan O, Ozcelik TB, Yagiz A. Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants. J Dent 2014;42:1551-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.10.008
  20. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Beyabanaki E, Kharazifard MJ. Accuracy of implant position transfer and surface detail reproduction with different impression materials and techniques. J Dent (Tehran) 2015;12:774-83.
  21. Passos L, Meiga S, Brigagao V, Street A. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:307-19.
  22. Gedrimiene A, Rutkunas V, Jegelevicius D, Akulauskas M, Barauskis D, Auskalnis L, Dirse J, Bilius V. In vitro study on digital splint effect to the accuracy of digital dental implant impression. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:365.
  23. Kaya G. Comparison of the digital measuremet systems used in dentistry. Master Thesis, Trakya University, 2021.
  24. Gimenez B, Ozcan 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 Implants 2014;29:853-62. https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.3343
  25. Flugge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:277-83. https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.4417
  26. Cincioglu M. Factors which effects the dental implants digital impression. Doctorate Thesis, Istanbul University, 2018.
  27. Mangano F, Gandolfi A, Luongo G, Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:149.
  28. Robles-Medina M, Romeo-Rubio M, Salido MP, Pradies G. Digital intraoral impression methods: an update on accuracy. Curr Oral Health Rep 2020;7:361-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-020-00285-z
  29. Moura RV, Kojima AN, Saraceni CHC, Bassolli L, Balducci I, Ozcan M, Mesquita AMM. Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for implant restorations. J Prosthodont 2019;28:e530-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12799
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 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