Influence of Different Factors on the Accuracy of Digital Impressions of Multiple Implants: An In Vitro Study

Zhang, Yijie; Qiao, Shuqing; Qian, Shu‐Jiao; Zhang, Chunan; Shi, Junyu; Lai, Heng

doi:10.11607/jomi.8532

Cited by 19 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12,26,27,28 However, LS is significantly more precise than intraoral scanners in cross-arch scans. 29,30,31 Several factors influence the accuracy of complete-arch implant scanning such as the number and type of scan bodies, their location and angulation, 32,33,34,35,36,37 the site of scanned surfaces, the lack of anatomic indexes, the quality of the scanner hardware and algorithms of the software, scanning technology, form and size of the master model. 38,39 Digital scanning of implants for completely edentulous arches may result in distortions because the large surface area to be scanned increases the risk of angulation errors resulting from the accumulation of registration errors of the patched 3D surfaces.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis

Ebeid

Nouh

Ashraf

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study evaluated the accuracy of different laboratory scanners (LS) for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations.Materials and Methods: Two maxillary models that are designed to receive an all-onfour implant retained prosthesis were fabricated then scanned using five different LS. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30 and group 2; 45 ). Each group was then subdivided into five subgroups according to the type of LS, subgroup T; Medit T710, subgroup I; IneosX5, subgroup E; 3ShapeE4, subgroup A; Autoscan DS-Mix, and subgroup M; Ceramill Map600. An industrial 3D scanner was used as reference scanner, then each model was scanned with 5 LS 10 times. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic 3D analysis software.Results: Both scanner type and implant angle had a significant effect on the trueness (p < 0.001). Significant interaction was found between the scanner type and implant angle (p < 0.001). For scanner type tukeys post hoc test revealed highest trueness with the 3Shape E4 (21.3 ± 2.1) and the medit T710 (22.6 ± 2.1) and least trueness with the shining 3D autoscan ds-mix (33.8 ± 3.0). Significantly better trueness was observed with the 30 than the 45 angle. Regarding precision, two-way ANOVA revealed significant effect of the scanner type only (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the 3Shape E4, medit T710, Ineos X5, and the Ceramill map600. However, all showed significantly higher precision values when compared to shining 3D autoscan ds-mix.Conclusions: All tested scanners showed results within the clinically acceptable range with 3ShapeE4 and Medit T710 showing the highest accuracy.Clinical significance: Tested scanners can be used for scanning of All-on-four implant supported prosthesis. K E Y W O R D S all-on-4, dental implants, digital dentistry, extraoral scanner, fixed prosthodontics 1 | INTRODUCTION Completely edentulous patients have always struggled with conventional dentures. The limitations in function and retention of complete dentures are related to the fact that they are only supported by the mucosa and no other retention element is present. 1 Loss of posterior teeth, especially at an early age, leads to a significant decrease in alveolar bone volume. The All-on-4 concept is a treatment concept based on placing four implants on the jawbone to support the final prosthesis. Distal implants insertion at an angle allows one to bypass

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis

Ebeid

Nouh

Ashraf

et al. 2022

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of this study showed that trueness was significantly better when the distal implant was mesially inclined compared to the parallel or lingual inclination, regardless of the intraoral scanner or scan body type. Similarly, Lin et al 5 and Zhang et al 13 using a partially edentulous mandible model, showed that digital implant impression accuracy was higher in angulated implants. However, in those studies 5 , 13 , the inclined terminal implants were tilted distally rather than mesially.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Similarly, Lin et al 5 and Zhang et al 13 using a partially edentulous mandible model, showed that digital implant impression accuracy was higher in angulated implants. However, in those studies 5 , 13 , the inclined terminal implants were tilted distally rather than mesially. When the implant at the distal end is mesially tilted in the partially edentulous region, the scan body position emerging supragingally is more mesial than the implant position at the bone crestal level because of the soft tissue thickness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Several studies using complete edentulous models also reported that implant inclination did not affect intraoral scan data accuracy 6 , 7 , 15 , 17 , 18 . The present study used models with silicone soft tissue, in contrast to previous studies 6 , 7 , 15 , 17 , 18 , which used models made of hard materials only 15 , 18 or models with silicone soft tissue only in the gingival crest 6 , 7 , 13 , 17 . In this study, we attempted to simulate an actual clinical situation by using entire models covered by silicone soft tissue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the effect of implant angulation on digital implant impression accuracy remains controversial. Some studies have reported better scan data accuracy in inclined implants than in parallel implants 5 , 13 . Another study reported worse accuracy in inclined implants 14 , and others have reported no significant difference 6 , 7 , 15 – 18 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials

Lee

Bae

Lee

2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of implant angulation on digital implant impression accuracy remain controversial. Therefore, this in vitro study aimed to compare the digital implant impression trueness among models with different implant angulations and scan body materials. Six partially edentulous mandibular models with dental implants on the right second premolar and second molar areas were categorized according to the implant angulation of the distal implant (parallel, or 15° mesially or lingually tilted compared to the mesial implant) and scan body materials (polyetheretherketone or titanium). After scanning each model with intraoral scanners, the root mean square and within-tolerance values were calculated with respect to the reference, and nonparametric statistical tests were performed (α = .05). Scan data from models with the mesially tilted distal implant showed better trueness than the corresponding parallel and lingually tilted groups in terms of root mean square values (p < .017). The root mean square value in the titanium scan body group was lower than that in the polyetheretherketone scan body group (p < .001). However, the percentage within a tolerance of ± .1 mm was higher in the polyetheretherketone scan body group than in the titanium scan body group (p = .001). Intraoral scan data of models where the terminal implant was mesially tilted showed better trueness.

show abstract

Investigation of the effects of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression using two intraoral scanners: An in vitro study

Geramipanah,

Sadighpour,

Payaminia

2023

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression in two intraoral scanners of Trios (3shape) and CEREC (Omnicam).Material and MethodsFour acrylic models each including six implants at sites 11, 12, 15, 17, 23, and 27 were used, including large with parallel implants, large with angled implants, small with parallel implants, and small with angled implants. After tightening the scan bodies, distance measurements were done using a coordinate measuring machine. Then, each model was scanned 10 times using each scanner. Trueness and precision measurements were finally computed.ResultsThe trueness values ranged from 20 to 260 μm in CEREC Omnicam, and from 40 to 1030 μm in Trios. The precision values ranged from 30 to 190 μm in CEREC Omnicam, while from 50 to 770 μm in Trios. The multivariate test analysis indicated that the measured distances via two scanners and different models show different behaviors. Pairwise interactions between these three variables were significant (p < .05). Pairwise interactions between these variables were also significant. (p < .0001).ConclusionsArch width could affect the accuracy of digital impression; by rotating toward the second quadrant and end points of the scan, errors have increased. However, the angulation of the implants had no effect on the accuracy of digital impression. The CEREC Omnicam scanner showed higher accuracy (trueness and precision) compared to the Trios (3shape) one.

show abstract

Influence of Different Factors on the Accuracy of Digital Impressions of Multiple Implants: An In Vitro Study

Cited by 19 publications

References 0 publications

Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis

Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant‐supported full arch fixed prosthesis

Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials

Investigation of the effects of arch size and implant angulation on the accuracy of digital impression using two intraoral scanners: An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About