BackgroundUntil now, only a few studies have compared the ability of different intraoral scanners (IOS) to capture high-quality impressions in patients with dental implants. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four IOS in a partially edentulous model (PEM) with three implants and in a fully edentulous model (FEM) with six implants.MethodsTwo gypsum models were prepared with respectively three and six implant analogues, and polyether-ether-ketone cylinders screwed on. These models were scanned with a reference scanner (ScanRider®), and with four IOS (CS3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, TrueDefinition®); five scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software, where they were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A detailed statistical analysis was carried out.ResultsIn the PEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (45.8 ± 1.6μm), followed by Trios3® (50.2 ± 2.5μm), Omnicam® (58.8 ± 1.6μm) and TrueDefinition® (61.4 ± 3.0μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and Trios3®, CS3600® and Omnicam®, CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and Omnicam®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®. In the FEM, CS3600® had the best trueness (60.6 ± 11.7μm), followed by Omnicam® (66.4 ± 3.9μm), Trios3® (67.2 ± 6.9μm) and TrueDefinition® (106.4 ± 23.1μm). Significant differences were found between CS3600® and TrueDefinition®, Trios3® and TrueDefinition®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®. For all scanners, the trueness values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM. In the PEM, TrueDefinition® had the best precision (19.5 ± 3.1μm), followed by Trios3® (24.5 ± 3.7μm), CS3600® (24.8 ± 4.6μm) and Omnicam® (26.3 ± 1.5μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. In the FEM, Trios3® had the best precision (31.5 ± 9.8μm), followed by Omnicam® (57.2 ± 9.1μm), CS3600® (65.5 ± 16.7μm) and TrueDefinition® (75.3 ± 43.8μm); no statistically significant differences were found among different IOS. For CS3600®, For CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the values obtained in the PEM were significantly better than those obtained in the FEM; no significant differences were found for Trios3®.ConclusionsSignificant differences in trueness were found among different IOS; for each scanner, the trueness was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. Conversely, the IOS did not significantly differ in precision; for CS3600®, Omnicam® and TrueDefinition®, the precision was higher in the PEM than in the FEM. These findings may have important clinical implications.

No abstract

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners used in oral implantology.MethodsTwo stone models were prepared, representing a partially and a totally edentulous maxilla, with three and six implant analogues, respectively, and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cylinders screwed on. The models were digitized with an industrial scanner (IScan D104I®) used as a reference, and with four intraoral scanners (Trios®; CS 3500®; Zfx Intrascan®; Planscan®). Five scans were taken for each model, using each different intraoral scanner. All datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software (Geomagics 2012®), where intraoral scans were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate general trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to evaluate general precision. General trueness and precision of any scanner were compared by model type, through an ANOVA model including scanner, model and their interaction. Finally, the distance and angles between simulated implants were measured in each group, and compared to those of the reference model, to evaluate local trueness.ResultsIn the partially edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best general trueness (47.8 μm) and precision (40.8 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.2 μm, precision 51.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 117.0 μm, precision 126.2 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 233.4 μm, precision 219.8 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. In the totally edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best performance in terms of general trueness (63.2 μm) and precision (55.2 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.6 μm, precision 67.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 103.0 μm, precision 112.4 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 253.4 μm, precision 204.2 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. Local trueness values confirmed these results.ConclusionsAlthough no differences in trueness and precision were found between partially and totally edentulous models, statistically significant differences were found between the different scanners. Further studies are required to confirm these results.

Background Until now, a few studies have addressed the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in implantology. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy of 5 different IOSs in the impressions of single and multiple implants, and to compare them. Methods Plaster models were prepared, representative of a partially edentulous maxilla (PEM) to be restored with a single crown (SC) and a partial prosthesis (PP), and a totally edentulous maxilla (TEM) to be restored with a full-arch (FA). These models were scanned with a desktop scanner, to capture reference models (RMs), and with 5 IOSs (CS 3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, DWIO®, Emerald®); 10 scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into a reverse-engineering software where they were superimposed on the corresponding RMs, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A statistical analysis was performed. Results In the SC, CS 3600® had the best trueness (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), followed by Trios3® (22.3 ± 0.5 μm), DWIO® (27.8 ± 3.2 μm), Omnicam® (28.4 ± 4.5 μm), Emerald® (43.1 ± 11.5 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best trueness (23 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (28.5 ± 0.5 μm), Omnicam® (38.1 ± 8.8 μm), Emerald® (49.3 ± 5.5 μm), DWIO® (49.8 ± 5 μm). In the FA, CS 3600® had the best trueness (44.9 ± 8.9 μm), followed by Trios3® (46.3 ± 4.9 μm), Emerald® (66.3 ± 5.6 μm), Omnicam® (70.4 ± 11.9 μm), DWIO® (92.1 ± 24.1 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in trueness was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). In the SC, CS 3600® had the best precision (11.3 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), DWIO® (27.1 ± 10.7 μm), Omnicam® (30.6 ± 3.3 μm), Emerald® (32.8 ± 10.7 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best precision (17 ± 2.3 μm), followed by Trios3® (21 ± 1.9 μm), Emerald® (29.9 ± 8.9 μm), DWIO® (34.8 ± 10.8 μm), Omnicam® (43.2 ± 9.4 μm). In the FA, Trios3® had the best precision (35.6 ± 3.4 μm), followed by CS 3600® (35.7 ± 4.3 μm), Emerald® (61.5 ± 18.1 μm), Omnicam® (89.3 ± 14 μm), DWIO® (111 ± 24.8 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in precision was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). Conclusions The IOSs showed significant differences between them, both in trueness and in precision. The mathematical error increased in the transition from SC to PP up to FA, both in trueness than in precision.

All biomaterials examined resulted in being biocompatible and seemed to improve new bone formation in maxillary sinus lift. No signs of inflammation were present. The data are very encouraging because of the high number of successfully treated patients and the good quality of bone found in the retrieved specimens.

The use of Morse taper connection implants represents a successful procedure for the rehabilitation of partially and completely edentulous arches. The absence of an implant-abutment interface (microgap) is associated with minimal crestal bone loss. The high mechanical stability significantly reduces prosthetic complications.

BackgroundNowadays implant placement protocols are widespread among clinicians all over the world. However, available literature, only partially analyses what can be potential benefits for the clinicians and patients, often focusing just on specific aspects, such as accuracy. The purpose of this review is to compare computer guided implant placement with conventional treatment protocols.MethodsA search strategy according to the P-I-C-O format was developed and executed using an electronic MEDLINE plus manual search from 2000 up to December 2016. This review included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) focusing on subjects treated with digital workflow for oral implant placement compared to conventional procedures. Data were extracted from eligible papers and analysed. All kinds of outcomes were considered, even patient-related and economical outcomes.ResultsThe search strategy revealed 16 articles; additional manual searches selected further 21 publications. Afterwards the evaluation of articles, only two studies could be selected for subsequent data extraction. The two identified RCTs analysed primary outcomes as prosthesis failure, implant failure, biological or prosthetic complications, and secondary outcomes as periimplant marginal bone loss. One RCT evaluated also the duration of treatment, post-surgical progress, additional treatment costs and patient satisfaction. The other RCT focused instead on evaluating eventual improvement of patient’s quality of life. In both selected studies, were not observed by the authors statistically significant differences between clinical cases treated with digital protocols and those treated with conventional ones. In one RCT, however post-surgical progress evaluation showed more patients’ self-reported pain and swelling in conventional group.ConclusionsWithin the limitation of this review, based on only two RCTs, the only evidence was that implant survival rate and effectiveness are similar for conventional and digital implant placement procedures. This is also confirmed by many other studies with however minor scientific evidence levels. Reduction of post-operative pain, surgical time and overall costs are discussed. Authors believe that scientific research should focus more in identifying which clinical situations can get greatest benefits from implant guided surgery. This should be done with research protocols such as RCT that assess comprehensively the advantages and disadvantages of fully digital surgical protocols.

No abstract