Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial

Arcuri, Lorenzo; Pozzi, Alessandro; Lio, Fabrizio; Rompen, Eric; Zechner, Werner; Nardi, Alessandra

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001

Cited by 102 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

133

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation could be explained by the compression of the impression material that was used for fixation of the impression posts in the CMA during its removal from the e192 implants. These results are in accordance with (28,29) and (30), where impressions of parallel implants also resulted in the highest accuracy.…”

Section: Digital Impressionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Bond strength of lithium disilicate after cleaning methods of the remaining hydrofluoric acid

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Complex implant treatments have steadily increased within implant prosthodontics. Based on the lower implant mobility, implant impressions need high accuracy in the model transfer to receive a high passive fit within the final prosthodontic restoration. To analyze the accurate 3-dimensional (3D) inter-implant-positions, a reference point is indispensable. However, there is no reference in the patients mouth, so the aim of the present study was to develop a new method based on a custom-made-measuring-aid (CMA) to assess the inter implant dimensions (InID) in patients. Material and Methods: Initially an implant master model (IMM/patient equivalent) was digitized by computed tomography. A CMA was fixed on the impression posts and the inter implant dimensions (InID) were recorded with a coordinate measurement machine (CMM). For comparison to conventional and digital impression techniques, 10 impressions per technique were taken. InIDs for the IMM, the CMA and the two impression techniques were compared. To give a proof of principle, the new 3D-method was applied to three patients as pilot cases. Results for trueness and precision were analyzed by pairwise comparisons (p< .05). All data were subjected to univariate ANOVA. Results: Mean deviation for InID ranged from 10.3±18μm(CMA) to 41.7±36μm(conventional). There were partially significant differences for InID between the CMA and the different impression techniques. There were no significant differences for InID within the CMA. The InID in the in-vivo evaluation ranged from 42.3μm to 376.7μm(digital) and from 58.3μm to 274.0μm(conventional). There were partially significant differences between the techniques. Conclusions: Within the limits of this study, with the developed method using a CMA it is possible to assess the true 3D-InID with a decisive higher accuracy than possible with a conventional or digital implant impression. Overall, the CMA in this study generated results that were deemed clinically useful for the investigated inter implant positions.

show abstract

Section: Digital Impressionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Bond strength of lithium disilicate after cleaning methods of the remaining hydrofluoric acid

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…z-axis) with respect to the library. Assembly errors (in the case of SBs composed of two assembled portions), as well as an incongruous screwing [ 38 ], can represent other sources of error. Finally, the shape and material of the SBs are important because they respectively influence the behaviour of the CAD superposition algorithm [ 27 , 39 ] and the absorption or reflection of light [ 39 , 40 ].…”

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

“…If, instead, congruence is not found, i.e., in the case of dimensional differences, the algorithm proceeds using the flat face of the SB as the main reference (if they have more than one, usually the more extended). The flat face undoubtedly represents a valid reference for the best-fit algorithm within the CAD software, but it may also represent an element of dangerous attraction [30]. In case of dimensional differences between the STL files, this face 'drives' the superimposition between the files.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial

Cited by 102 publications

References 32 publications

Bond strength of lithium disilicate after cleaning methods of the remaining hydrofluoric acid

Bond strength of lithium disilicate after cleaning methods of the remaining hydrofluoric acid

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About