The Influence of Laboratory Scanner Versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining the Implant Axis by Using Three Different Scan Abutments

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the implant axis’ spatial position and orientation by using laboratory scanner versus intra-oral scanner with three different scan abutments. Methods: A 3D model was printed with an internal hex implant analog in the place of teeth 35#. Three standard scan abutments were used: MIS (two-piece titanium), AB (two-piece PEEK and titanium base) and ZZ (one-piece PEEK). Each scan abutment was scanned 30 times by TRIOS E3 (laboratory scanner) and 30 times by Omnicam (intra-oral scanner). For each scan, an STL (stereolithography) file was created, and the spatial characterization of each scan abutment was measured in the X, Y, Z coordinates, and rotational and longitudinal angles. The comparison between all the scans was conducted by superimposition of the STL files, using a 3D software. A t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used. (p < 0.05) Results: Only the MIS scan abutment showed no statistical difference in the X and Z axes. (p < 0.05). All other scan abutments showed a statistical difference in all axes. The rotational angle of the AB scan abutment was twice the angle of the MIS and ZZ scan abutments. Conclusions: All three scan abutments showed a rotational deviation of the implant axis between the laboratory scanner and the intra-oral scanner. The AB scan abutment showed the greatest deviation (1.04 degrees) while the other two abutments showed deviations of about half a degree in relation to the laboratory scan abutment. There is a need for further studies which will examine the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the accuracy of the scan obtained.

The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study

“…We assume that because of the cylindrical shape of the ZZ ISB, it is easier to define and superimpose the axis. As for this point, in our previous study for a single ZZ ISB, it was found that one piece with a cylindrical shape had the lowest intra-implant angle (0.4 mm) compared to two other ISBs (MIS and AB) [29].…”

“…It is already known from the literature that the geometry of the scan abutments, onepiece or two pieces, the materials, and the scanning techniques are some of the parameters that may affect the accuracy [15,30], In the current study, we decided to use only the titanium ISB as we realized in our previous research that PEEK is less accurate and we recommended the use of titanium [29]. Pan et al tested two different scan abutments and their impact on accuracy.…”