Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch

Tan, Ming Yi; Yee, Sophia Hui Xin; Wong, Kin Mun; Tan, Ying Han; Tan, Kong-Bing

doi:10.11607/jomi.6855

Cited by 85 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the data presented in this study, which refer to the intrinsic trueness of the different IOSs analysed, must be taken with caution. The IOS is not the only factor involved in determining the final accuracy of an optical impression: the operator [ 34 ], patient [ 35 ], light conditions [ 36 ] and SB [ 37 – 40 ] are also key. The operator is essential because different scanning strategies and different levels of experience can determine different results, as reported in the literature [ 34 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The patient is equally important. Implants can be inserted in different positions, inclinations and depths, and these factors can positively (or negatively) influence the final trueness of the scan [ 35 ]. With regard to this aspect, the literature is scarce too [ 16 , 33 ], and investigating more deeply the effects of these variables is advisable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression. Methods A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed. Results With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation. Conclusions Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other elements contribute to increasing the error: environmental factors (light conditions) [22], factors related to the patient (position, depth and inclination of the implants) [28], factors related to the operator (scanning strategy [23] and experience of the clinician), and finally, the SB [24]. The SB is the transfer that allows capturing the position of the implants in the digital workflow and is therefore crucial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Congruence between Meshes and Library Files of Implant Scanbodies: An In Vitro Study Comparing Five Intraoral Scanners

Mangano

Lerner

Margiani

et al. 2020

JCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. To compare the reliability of five different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in the capture of implant scanbodies (SBs) and to verify the dimensional congruence between the meshes (MEs) of the SBs and the corresponding library file (LF). Methods. A gypsum cast of a fully edentulous maxilla with six implant analogues and SBs screwed on was scanned with five different IOSs (PRIMESCAN®, CS 3700®, MEDIT i-500®, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®, and Emerald S®). Ten scans were taken for each IOS. The resulting MEs were imported to reverse engineering software for 3D analysis, consisting of the superimposition of the SB LF onto each SB ME. Then, a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the deviations between MEs and LF was performed. A careful statistical analysis was performed. Results. PRIMESCAN® showed the highest congruence between SB MEs and LF, with the lowest mean absolute deviation (25.5 ± 5.0 μm), immediately followed by CS 3700® (27.0 ± 4.3 μm); the difference between them was not significant (p = 0.1235). PRIMESCAN® showed a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500® (29.8 ± 4.8 μm, p < 0.0001), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (34.2 ± 9.3 μm, p < 0.0001), and Emerald S® (38.3 ± 7.8 μm, p < 0.0001). CS 3700® had a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500® (p = 0.0004), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (p < 0.0001), and Emerald S® (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were also found between MEDIT i-500® and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (p < 0.0001), MEDIT i-500® and Emerald S® (p < 0.0001), and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® and Emerald S® (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were found among different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. The deviations of the IOSs showed different directions and patterns. With PRIMESCAN®, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®, and Emerald S®, the MEs were included inside the LF; with CS 3700®, the LF was included in the MEs. MEDIT i-500® showed interpolation between the MEs and LF, with no clear direction for the deviation. Conclusions. Statistically different levels of congruence were found between the SB MEs and the corresponding LF when using different IOSs. Significant differences were also found between different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. Finally, the qualitative evaluation revealed different directions and patterns for the five IOSs.

show abstract

“…The error grows with the stitching of the images and with the progression of the scan [ 6 ]. Additional factors that can determine inaccuracy depend on the operator (scanning strategy) [ 7 ], patient (number, position, inclination and depth of the implants) [ 8 ], environmental conditions (light) and transfer of the implant position, the so-called scanbody (SB) [ 9 , 10 ]. The design and materials with which SBs are made, together with manufacturing tolerances, have been documented to cause errors [ 9 , 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: in vitro trueness evaluation

Mangano

Bonacina²,

Mandelli³

et al. 2020

BMC Res Notes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To assess the trueness of a solid index (SI) in the full-arch (FA) implant impression, and to compare it with that of two intraoral scanners (IOSs). A type-IV gypsum model of a completely edentulous patient with 8 implant scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (7Series®) to obtain a reference virtual model (RVM), and with two IOSs (CS 3700® and Emerald S®). Five scans were taken with each IOS. Based on the RVM, an SI (custom tray consisting of hollow cylinders connected by a bar) was fabricated and used to capture a physical impression of the model; from this, a second gypsum model was derived and scanned with a desktop scanner (D15®). The SI-derived and the IOSs-derived models were superimposed onto the RVM, to evaluate trueness. Results The overall mean trueness was 29 μm (± 26) for the SI-derived model, versus 42.4 μm (± 14.7) for CS 3700® and 52.2 μm (± 4.6) for Emerald S®. Despite its limitations (in vitro design, a limited number of models evaluated, RVM captured with a desktop scanner) this study supports the use of SI for FA implant impressions. Further studies are needed to confirm this evidence.

show abstract

Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch

Cited by 85 publications

References 5 publications

Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

Congruence between Meshes and Library Files of Implant Scanbodies: An In Vitro Study Comparing Five Intraoral Scanners

Solid index versus intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: in vitro trueness evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About