Effect of Scanned Area and Operator on the Accuracy of Dentate Arch Scans with a Single Implant

Abstract

Studies have shown the effect of the operator and scanned areas on the accuracy of single implant scans. However, the knowledge on the scan accuracy of the remaining dental arch during single implant scans, which may affect the occlusion, is limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of scanned areas and the operator on the scan accuracy of a dentate arch while scanning a single implant. A dentate model with an anterior implant was digitized with a laboratory scanner (reference scan). Three operators with similar experience performed 10 complete- and 10 partial-arch scans (left 2nd molar to right canine) with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3), and these scans were superimposed over the reference. The accuracy was analyzed at 22 points in complete-arch and at 16 points in partial-arch scans on 2nd molars and incisors. Data were evaluated with 2-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (α = 0.05). The trueness of the total scanned area was higher in partial- than in complete-arch scans (p < 0.001). The trueness and precision of the scans were higher in the anterior site compared with the posterior in complete- (trueness: p ≤ 0.022, precision: p ≤ 0.003) and partial-arch (trueness: p ≤ 0.016, precision: p ≤ 0.016) scans of each operator and when the operator scan data were pooled. The complete-arch scan’s precision was not influenced by the operator (p ≥ 0.029), whereas the partial-arch scans of operator 1 and 2 were significantly different (p = 0.036). Trueness was higher in partial- compared with complete-arch scans, but their precision was similar. Accuracy was higher in the anterior site regardless of the scan being a partial- or a complete-arch. The operator’s effect on the accuracy of partial- and complete-arch scans was small.

In vitro scan accuracy and time efficiency in various implant-supported fixed partial denture situations

“…Nevertheless, given that the greatest median inter-implant distance deviation measured was 33.7 µm, it can be speculated that implant-supported FPDs fabricated by using tested impression techniques would have clinically acceptable fit, as reported misfit value for implant-supported restorations varied from 10 µm to 150 µm [39,40]. However, the authors are unaware of a longitudinal clinical study on maximum misfit, and there could be deviations at proximal or occlusal contacts [6], which should be tested clinically.…”

“…Incorporation of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) technologies has been one of the paramount advancements in dentistry [1][2][3][4][5]. These advancements have facilitated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in various dental applications, including implant prosthodontics [6][7][8]. Direct digital impressions of implants minimize clinic-and laboratory-related shortcomings of conventional impressions [8][9][10].…”

Effect of intraoral scanner and fixed partial denture situation on the scan accuracy of multiple implants: An in vitro study

“…IOS scan STLs were superimposed over the reference scan STLs after automatic prealignment and global best‐fit excluding only the SB surface data for each model (Figure 2). 25 Eight points were generated on each SB of the reference scan STL and their coordinates were recorded, which allowed a standardized selection of the points throughout the analyses 30 . The points were projected onto the IOS scan, and the 3D distance deviations of these points were automatically calculated and then averaged for each scan.…”

“…In addition, among those studies, only one has evaluated the scan accuracy of anterior implants for an FPD when complete‐arch scans were performed 24 . However, higher trueness has been reported for partial‐arch scans compared with complete‐arch scans 19,25 . Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of two IOSs and three different FPD situations (two implants placed at maxillary right first premolar and first molar sites, at maxillary right canine and first molar sites, or at maxillary lateral incisor sites) on the accuracy of partial‐arch implant scans.…”

“…24 However, higher trueness has been reported for partialarch scans compared with complete-arch scans. 19,25 Therefore, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of two IOSs and three different FPD situations (two implants placed at maxillary right first premolar and first molar sites, at maxillary right canine and first molar sites, or at maxillary lateral incisor sites) on the accuracy of partial-arch implant scans. The null hypotheses were that (i) the type of IOS and FPD situation would not affect the trueness of implant scans and (ii) the type of IOS and FPD situation would not affect the precision of implant scans.…”