The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of reference objects on the accuracy of digital implant impressions in partially edentulous arches

  • Vygandas Rutkunas (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University) ;
  • Darius Jegelevicius (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University) ;
  • Justinas Pletkus (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University) ;
  • Liudas Auskalnis (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University) ;
  • Mykolas Akulauskas (Biomedical Engineering Institute, Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania, Department of Electronics Engineering, Kaunas University of Technology) ;
  • Tan Firat Eyuboglu (Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Medipol University) ;
  • Mutlu Ozcan (University of Zurich, Clinic of Masticatory Disorders and Dental Biomaterials, Center for Dental Medicine) ;
  • Agne Gedrimiene (Department of Prosthodontics, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University)
  • Received : 2024.05.24
  • Accepted : 2024.10.22
  • Published : 2024.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies. Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch's ANOVA. RESULTS. CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION. The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

The study was supported by the Lithuanian Business Support Agency grant Nr. J05-LVPA-K-01-0055 and DIGITORUM research team registration number "MTTP SK".

References

  1. Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, Chochlidakis K. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont 2020;29:660-78. 
  2. Wulfman C, Naveau A, Rignon-Bret C. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:161-7. 
  3. Rutkunas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, Vaitiekunas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol 2017;10 Suppl 1:101-20. 
  4. Lin WS, Harris BT, Elathamna EN, Abdel-Azim T, Morton D. Effect of implant divergence on the accuracy of definitive casts created from traditional and digital implant-level impressions: an in vitro comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2015;30:102-9. 
  5. Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Ozcan M, Pradies G. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla. J Prosthodont 2017;26:650-5. 
  6. Stimmelmayr M, Guth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:851-6. 
  7. Ender A, Mehl A. Influence of scanning strategies on the accuracy of digital intraoral scanning systems. Int J Comput Dent 2013;16:11-21. 
  8. Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123:96-104. 
  9. Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part - An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:1250-8. 
  10. Roig E, Roig M, Garza LC, Costa S, Maia P, Espona J. Fit of complete-arch implant-supported prostheses produced from an intraoral scan by using an auxiliary device and from an elastomeric impression: a pilot clinical trial. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:404-14. 
  11. Rutkunas V, Gedrimiene A, Al-Haj Husain N, Pletkus J, Barauskis D, Jegelevicius D, Ozcan M. Effect of additional reference objects on accuracy of five intraoral scanners in partially and completely edentulous jaws: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2023;130:111-8. 
  12. Kim JE, Amelya A, Shin Y, Shim JS. Accuracy of intraoral digital impressions using an artificial landmark. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:755-61. 
  13. Nuytens P, D'haese R, Vandeweghe S. Reliability and time efficiency of digital vs. analog bite registration technique for the manufacture of full-arch fixed implant prostheses. J Clin Med 2022;11:2882. 
  14. Lo Russo L, Ciavarella D, Salamini A, Guida L. Alignment of intraoral scans and registration of maxillo-mandibular relationships for the edentulous maxillary arch. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:737-40. 
  15. Richert R, Goujat A, Venet L, Viguie G, Viennot S, Robinson P, Farges JC, Fages M, Ducret M. Intraoral scanner technologies: a review to make a successful impression. J Healthc Eng 2017;2017:8427595. 
  16. Michelinakis G, Apostolakis D, Kamposiora P, Papavasiliou G, Ozcan M. The direct digital workflow in fixed implant prosthodontics: a narrative review. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:37. 
  17. Ender A, Mehl A. In vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions. Quintessence Int 2015;46:9-17. 
  18. Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61:450-9. 
  19. Malik J, Rodriguez J, Weisbloom M, Petridis H. Comparison of accuracy between a conventional and two digital intraoral impression techniques. Int J Prosthodont 2018;31:107-13. 
  20. Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z, Ercoli C. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont 2020;29:281-6. 
  21. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:11-9. 
  22. Passos L, Meiga S, Brigagao V, Street A. Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions: an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent 2019;22:307-19. 
  23. Son K, Jin MU, Lee KB. Feasibility of using an intraoral scanner for a complete arch digital scan, part 2: a comparison of scan strategies. J Prosthet Dent 2023;129:341-9. 
  24. Diker B, Tak O. Accuracy of six intraoral scanners for scanning complete-arch and 4-unit fixed partial dentures: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:187-94. 
  25. Ender A, Zimmermann M, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods for obtaining quadrant dental impressions. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:1495-504. 
  26. Zimmermann M, Koller C, Rumetsch M, Ender A, Mehl A. Precision of guided scanning procedures for fullarch digital impressions in vivo. J Orofac Orthop 2017;78:466-71. 
  27. Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 2017;17:92. 
  28. Flugge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont 2016;29:277-83. 
  29. Kim JE, Hong YS, Kang YJ, Kim JH, Shim JS. Accuracy of scanned stock abutments using different intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2019;28:797-803. 
  30. Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Etxaniz O, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy analysis of complete-arch digital scans in edentulous arches when using an auxiliary geometric device. J Prosthet Dent 2019;121:447-54. 
  31. Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res 2020;31:625-33. 
  32. Motel C, Kirchner E, Adler W, Wichmann M, Matta RE. Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2020;29:309-314. 
  33. Alikhasi M, Siadat H, Nasirpour A, Hasanzade M. Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type. Int J Dent 2018;2018:3761750.