Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete‐arch implant rehabilitation

Huang, Ruoxuan; Liu, Yuanxiang; Huang, Baoxin; Zhang, Chaobiao; Chen, Zhuofan; Li, Zhipeng

doi:10.1111/clr.13598

Cited by 96 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These fabrication errors can affect the trueness of the scan: therefore, for the evaluation of the trueness and in order to produce a reference model, reference data for each SB should be obtained using a high-precision CMM machine or industrial 3D optical scanner. Manufacturing tolerances, in fact, play a potentially important role that deserves to be properly investigated, as reported in previous studies [27,33]. However, our present study aimed to investigate the congruence between the SB MEs and the LF, and not the trueness of each SB scan.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

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

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

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

show abstract

“…Ten studies 12,21‐24,63‐67 evaluated completely edentulous jaws with 2 to 8 implants, while 8 studies 11,13,25,68‐72 investigated situations with a partially edentulous arch with two or more implants.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of completely edentulous studies evaluated the accuracy of True Definition (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN) IOS (n = 6), 12,21,23,24,64,65 followed by Trios (3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (n = 5), 22,23,63,66,67 and Cerec Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany) (n = 1) 65 . Two studies 23,65 evaluated 2 intraoral scanners.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Papaspyridakos

Vazouras

Chen

et al. 2020

Journal of Prosthodontics

110

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To systematically review in vitro and clinical studies comparing quantitatively the 3D accuracy (global implant deviations) of digital vs conventional implant impressions for partially and completely edentulous patients. Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual searches were conducted to identify in vitro and clinical studies, reporting on the 3D accuracy between digital and conventional implant impressions. Secondary outcomes were the effect of implant angulation, type of conventional impression technique, and type of intraoral scanner on the accuracy of implant impressions. Results: The inclusion criteria were met by 9 in vitro studies and 1 clinical study reporting on completely edentulous impressions, while 6 in vitro and 2 clinical studies reported on partially edentulous impressions. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed for 5 completely edentulous and 6 partially edentulous studies. The studies exhibited high values for heterogeneity. A random effects model was conducted to estimate the effect size. Based on 5 in vitro studies on completely edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 8.20 µm (95% CI: −53.56, 37.15) and the digital impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.72). Based on 1 clinical and 5 in vitro studies on partially edentulous impressions, the mean 3D implant deviation between conventional and digital impressions was 52.31 µm (95% CI: 6.30, 98.33) and the conventional impressions had nominally less deviation (p = 0.03). Five in vitro and 2 clinical studies were not included in the quantitative analysis due to heterogeneity in the methodology. Implant angulation affected the accuracy in favor of the partially edentulous conventional impressions whereas the effect of different scanners was not statistically significant on the completely edentulous impressions (p = 0.82). Conclusions: Digital scans appear to have comparable 3D accuracy with conventional implant impressions based mainly on in vitro studies. However, clinical trials are recommended to investigate the clinical accuracy of digital scans and digitally fabricated interim or prototype prostheses, before digital implant scans can be recommended for routine clinical use.

show abstract

“…In the present in vitro study, all scans were captured in the same environment, under controlled light conditions; however, these conditions are very different from those of the oral cavity, and the literature must certainly investigate in more detail how much this can affect the quality of the scans [ 36 ]. Finally, the SB plays a fundamental role, being the device for transferring the implant position [ 37 – 41 ]. Manufacturing tolerances [ 37 ] can cause errors in the transfer of the implant position in the space.…”

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

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

Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete‐arch implant rehabilitation

Cited by 96 publications

References 33 publications

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

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

Digital vs Conventional Implant Impressions: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About