Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study

Motel, Constantin; Kirchner, Elena; Adler, Werner; Wichmann, Manfred; Matta, Ragai Edward

doi:10.1111/jopr.13131

Cited by 68 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous studies have been performed to examine the difference in accuracy according to multiple scan strategies within a single scanning system. Motel et al compared the difference in accuracy between two strategies for implant impression using the TRIOS 3 scanner in an in vitro study [22]. The first strategy involved a one-step approach by scanning both the scan bodies and surrounding structures together, whereas the second strategy combined an initial scan without the scan bodies and a final scan with the scan bodies in place.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Chiu

Chen

Hayashi

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advancement of intraoral scanners has allowed for more efficient workflow in the dental clinical setting. However, limited data exist regarding the accuracy of the digital impressions produced with various scanner settings and scanning approaches. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impressions at the crown preparation margin using different scanning resolutions of a specific intraoral scanner system. An all-ceramic crown preparation of a mandibular first molar was constructed in a typodont, and a scan (n = 3) was created with an industrial-grade laboratory scanner (3Shape D2000) as the control. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (3Shape TRIOS 3) under three settings—high resolution (HR), standard resolution (SR), and combined resolution (SHR). Comparative 3D analysis of scans was performed with Geomagic Control X software to measure the discrepancy between intraoral scans and the control scan along the preparation finish line. The scan time and number of images captured per scan were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way ANOVA, two-way repeated measures ANOVA, Pearson’s correlation, and Dunnett’s T3 test (α = 0.05). Significant differences were observed for scan time and for number of images captured among scan resolution settings (α < 0.05). The scan time for the SR group was, on average, 34.2 s less than the SHR group and 46.5 s less than the HR group. For discrepancy on the finish line, no significant differences were observed among scanning resolutions (HR: 31.5 ± 5.5 μm, SHR: 33.2 ± 3.7 μm, SR: 33.6 ± 3.1 μm). Significant differences in discrepancy were observed among tooth surfaces, with the distal surface showing the highest discrepancies. In conclusion, the resolution of the intra-oral scanner is primarily defined by the system hardware and optimized for default scans. A software high-resolution mode that obtains more data over a longer time may not necessarily benefit the scan accuracy, while the tooth preparation and surface parameters do affect the accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Chiu

Chen

Hayashi

et al. 2020

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results obtained with the different IOSs were evaluated and compared to verify the degree of reliability in the capture of the SB with the different machines. The study design is summarised in Figure 1. congruence is not exact between the LF of the SB with the corresponding ME acquired with IOS, problems can arise in the superimposition in CAD, which may result in positional errors [25,27].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, the SB is still little investigated in the literature [24], but plays a fundamental role in the acquisition. Study of SBs should consider design, material, colour, and tolerances in the fabrication [24][25][26][27]. To date, only a few studies have investigated the influence of these parameters on the quality of the scan [24][25][26][27], and unfortunately, no studies have analysed in depth what happens in the very early stages of CAD modelling, i.e., when the dental technician replaces the SB ME with the corresponding LF.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

“…To digitize standard two-piece implants, a scan body used as reference geometry is screwed into the implant ("virtual impression coping") and its position is recorded by means of an intraoral scanner (IOS) [17]. A recent in vitro investigation demonstrated the influence of both the scan strategy and the geometry of the scan bodies on the accuracy of the digitization process [18]. Irrespective of the system, the fit of the final restoration depends on the accuracy of the previous intraoral scan.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digitization of One-Piece Oral Implants: A Feasibility Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For digital impression-making of two-piece oral implants, scan bodies are used to transfer the exact intraoral implant position to the dental laboratory. In this in vitro investigation, the accuracy of digitizing a one-piece ceramic oral implant without a scan body (OC) was compared to that of a standard two-piece titanium implant with a scan body (TT) and a preparation of a natural single tooth (ST). Furthermore, incomplete scans of OC simulating clinical compromising situations (OC1–4) were redesigned using a virtual reconstruction tool (RT) and superimposed to OC. OC and TT oral implants and one ST were inserted into a mandible typodont model and digitized (N = 13) using two different intraoral scanners. The resulting virtual datasets were superimposed onto a three-dimensional (3D) laser scanner-based reference. Test and reference groups were aligned using an inspection software according to a best-fit algorithm, and circumferential as well as marginal discrepancies were measured. For the statistical evaluation, multivariate analyses of variance with post-hoc Tukey tests and students t-tests to compare both scanners were performed. A total of 182 datasets were analyzed. For circumferential deviations, no significant differences were found between ST, TT, and OC (p > 0.964), but increased deviations for OC1–4 (p < 0.001) were observed. The measurements of the marginal deviations revealed that ST had the smallest deviations, and that there were no significant differences between TT, OC, and OC1–4 (p > 0.979). Except for marginal deviation of OC (p < 0.001), the outcome was not affected by the scanner. Within the limitations of this study, digitization of OC is as accurate as that of TT, but less than that of ST. In the case of known geometries, post-processing of compromised scans with a virtual reconstruction results in accurate data.

show abstract

Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study

Cited by 68 publications

References 28 publications

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

Accuracy of CAD/CAM Digital Impressions with Different Intraoral Scanner Parameters

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

Digitization of One-Piece Oral Implants: A Feasibility Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About