Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2021.59.1.27

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

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)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.59, no.1, 2021 , pp. 27-35 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
Dental implant; Digital scan; Scanbody;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.   DOI
2 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.
3 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.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
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.   DOI
7 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.
8 Sahin S, Cehreli MC. The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 2001;10:85-92.   DOI
9 Ramsey CD, Ritter RG. Utilization of digital technologies for fabrication of definitive implant-supported restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24:299-308.   DOI
10 Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343-52.   DOI
11 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.   DOI
12 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.   DOI
13 Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. Current challenges in successful rehabilitation with oral implants. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:286-94.   DOI
14 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.
15 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.   DOI
16 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 Goll GE. Production of accurately fitting full-arch implant frameworks: Part I-Clinical procedures. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:377-84.   DOI
19 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.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 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.   DOI