Effect of implant scan body geometric modifications on the trueness and scanning time of complete arch intraoral implant digital scans: An in vitro study

Lawand, Ghida; Ismail, Yara; Revilla‐León, Marta; Tohmé, Hani

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.06.004

Cited by 16 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Operator-related factors include the clinician's skill and decisions that can impact the scanning accuracy of IOSs. 2 There are mainly four operator-related variables: ambient lighting conditions, 37 scanning pattern, [38][39][40] implant scan body design, [48][49][50][51][52][53][54] and scanning technique used (scanbody splinting methods). When acquiring intraoral digital implant scans compared to scanning teeth, it is also important to consider the specific implant scan body (ISB) used (Figure 1).…”

Section: Operator-related Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, additional factors should be considered when recording intraoral implant digital scans such as implant depth and angulation, [41][42][43][44][45] inter-implant distance, 27,46,47 and implant scan body design (material, geometry, and retention system). [48][49][50][51][52][53][54] The factors that can decrease intraoral scanning accuracy generate an accumulated scanning distortion. 2,3 Therefore, understanding and recognizing these influencing factors can help increase the predictability and reliability of dental treatments completed by using digital workflows.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

Revilla‐León,

Lanis,

Yilmaz

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo report the means to maximize the predictability and accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans through the evaluation of operator and patient related factors.Materials and MethodsCollection of published articles related to factors that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans was completed in 4 data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science. All studies related to variables that can influence the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs) were considered. These variables included ambient lighting, scanning pattern, implant scan body (ISB) design, techniques for splinting ISBs, arch location, implant position and inter‐implant distance.ResultsAmong operator‐related factors, ambient lighting conditions, scanning pattern, and ISB design (material, geometry, and retention design) can impact the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. It is unclear the optimal ISB for maximizing the IOSs accuracy; however, polymer ISB can wear with multiple reuse and sterilization methods. Among patient‐related factors, additional variables should be considered, namely arch (maxillary vs mandibular arch), implant position in the arch, inter‐implant distance, implant depth, and angulation.ConclusionsAmbient lighting conditions should be established based on the IOS selected to optimize the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal scanning pattern may vary based on the IOS, clinical situation, and the number of implants. The optimal ISB design may vary depending on the IOS used. Metallic implant scan bodies are preferred over polymer ISB designs to minimize wear due to multiple use and sterilization distortion. Among patient‐related factors, additional variables should be considered namely the arch scanned, implant position in the arch, inter‐implant distance, implant depth and angulation. The impact of these factors may vary depending on the IOS selected.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

show abstract

Section: Operator-related Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

Revilla‐León,

Lanis,

Yilmaz

et al. 2023

Journal of Prosthodontics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] Different scan body designs have been tested aiming to simplify the digitizing procedures and to increase intraoral scanning accuracy. 48,64,65 However, the restricted clinical data does not support a systematic recommendation for selecting an implant scan body design. Furthermore, there may be no implant scan body design that optimally performs for all the different IOSs available.…”

Section: Implant Scan Bodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Limited published data is available to determine the optimal implant scan body geometry and material for maximizing the scanning accuracy of intraoral digital scans involving single or multiple implants. [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] Different scan body designs have been tested aiming to simplify the digitizing procedures and to increase intraoral scanning accuracy. 48,64,65 However, the restricted clinical data does not support a systematic recommendation for selecting an implant scan body design.…”

Section: Implant Scan Bodiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2—Patient factors

Revilla‐León

Kois

2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To describe the factors related to patient intraoral conditions that impact the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these influencing factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision-making and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans.Overview: Variables related to intraoral conditions of the patient that can influence the scanning accuracy of IOSs include tooth type, presence of interdental spaces, arch width variations, palate characteristics, wetness, existing restorations, characteristics of the surface being digitized, edentulous areas, interimplant distance, position, angulation, and depth of existing implants, and implant scan body selection. Conclusions:The knowledge and understanding of the patient's intraoral conditions that can impact the scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

show abstract

“…These factors include IOS calibration (Revilla‐León, Gohil, Barmak, Gómez‐Polo, et al, 2022), operator experience (Lim et al, 2018; Resende et al, 2021), ambient lighting conditions (Ochoa‐López et al, 2022; Revilla‐León, Jiang, et al, 2020; Revilla‐León, Subramanian, et al, 2020, 2021), scanning pattern (Ender & Mehl, 2013; Gómez‐Polo, Cimolai, et al, 2022; Li et al, 2022; Medina‐Sotomayor et al, 2018; Müller et al, 2016), cutting‐off and rescanning techniques (Gómez‐Polo et al, 2021; Revilla‐León, Quesada‐Olmo, et al, 2021; Revilla‐León, Sicilia, et al, 2022), arch width (Kaewbuasa & Ongthiemsak, 2021; Kim et al, 2020), arch location (Schimmel et al, 2021), number of teeth missing (Canullo et al, 2021; Ender et al, 2019; Rasaie et al, 2021; Schimmel et al, 2021), intraoral humidity (Chen et al, 2022), existing restorations (Lim et al, 2021; Revilla‐León, Young, et al, 2022), and characteristics of the surface being digitized (Carbajal Mejía et al, 2017; Jin‐Young Kim et al, 2021; Park et al, 2020). Additionally, implant position, angulation, and depth (Carneiro Pereira et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2021), as well as the implant scan body design (Lawand et al, 2022; Mizumoto & Yilmaz, 2018; Moslemion et al, 2020), orientation of the geometry bevel feature of the implant scan body (Gómez‐Polo, Álvarez, et al, 2022), implant scan body wear (Arcuri et al, 2022), and clinical implant scan body height (Gómez‐Polo, Sallorenzo, et al, 2022) can also impact intraoral scanning accuracy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete‐arch intraoral digital implant scans

Gómez‐Polo

Cascos

Ortega

et al. 2023

Clinical Oral Implants Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To measure the influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans acquired using an intraoral scanner (IOS). Materials and Methods:A maxillary (maxillary group) and mandibular (mandibular group) model with 6 implant abutments on each cast was digitized using a desktop scanner (control scans). Six subgroups were created based on the scanning pattern used to acquire the scans using an IOS (Trios 4): occluso-buccal-lingual (OBL subgroup), occluso-linguo-buccal (OLB subgroup), bucco-linguo-occlusal (BLO subgroup), linguo-buccal-occlusal (LBO subgroup), zigzag (ZZ subgroup), and circumferential (C subgroup). The control scans were used as a reference to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans calculating the root mean square error. Two-way ANOVA and the pairwise comparison Tukey tests were used to analyze the data (α = .05).Results: Significant discrepancies in trueness (p < .001), precision (p < .001), scanning time (p < .001), and number of photograms (p < .001) were found. The maxillary group obtained poorer trueness and precision values, higher scanning times, and a larger number of photograms than the mandibular group. The C subgroup obtained the best trueness and precision values, but was not significantly different from the OLB, BLO, and LBO subgroups. The ZZ subgroup obtained the worst trueness and precision values (p < .05). The C subgroup obtained the lowest scanning time and number of photograms (p < .05).Conclusions: Arch location and scanning pattern influenced scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete-arch implant scans.

show abstract

Effect of implant scan body geometric modifications on the trueness and scanning time of complete arch intraoral implant digital scans: An in vitro study

Cited by 16 publications

References 51 publications

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

Intraoral digital implant scans: Parameters to improve accuracy

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans: Part 2—Patient factors

Influence of arch location and scanning pattern on the scanning accuracy, scanning time, and number of photograms of complete‐arch intraoral digital implant scans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About