Comparison of Accuracy in Digital Implant Impression using Dedicated and Compatible Scanbodies

Geunwoon Jang; Joonseong Kim; Yuri Heo; Meekyoung Son

doi:10.32542/implantology.2022002

All Issue

2022 Vol.26, Issue 1 Preview Page Next Page

Original Article

Comparison of Accuracy in Digital Implant Impression using Dedicated and Compatible Scanbodies

31 March 2022. pp. 15-26

PDF XML

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of digital implant impressions using two different types of scanbodies for the same implant.

Materials and Methods: Four implants (TS III) were inserted in the second premolar and the first molar edentulous areas on a mandibular acrylic resin dentiform. Reference digital images were obtained through a dental model scanner (S600 ARTI model scanner) af ter connecting their own digital scanbodies for the implants. Experimental intraoral scanner images were acquired using the Trios^® scanner with both Zirconzhan’s own scanbodies for the implants and compatible scanbodies (Dio scan adapter 01). The experimental groups were categorized into eight groups (T1-T4, NT1-NT4) according to position of the implant, existence of the second molar and scanbody type. Digital images of the experimental group were matched with the reference images using the optimal matching algorithm of a 3D image analysis program (Geomagic Design X 2014), and scanning errors were calculated. Independent two sample t-test was applied to assess the significance between the two experimental groups (α = .05).

Results: Average error values in Groups T1-NT4 were 0.87 ± 0.46 um, 4.86 ± 3.08 um, 4.64 ± 1.94 um, 3.80 ± 2.76 um, 4.34 ± 2.45 um, 16.80 ± 4.98 um, 7.51 ± 1.09 um, and 12.96 ± 3.74 um respectively. Statistically significant differences were found corresponding to the second premolar edentulous area according to the scanbodies. Statistically significant differences were found in both the second premolar and first molar edentulous areas depending on the presence of the most posterior tooth.

Conclusion: Using compatible scanbodies to take a digital impression of an implant can be an effective alternative to using a dedicated scanbody for the implant.

Keywords

Compatible scanbody

Digital impression

Intraoral scanner

Scan accuracy

References

Jemt T. Failures and complications in 391 consecutively inserted fixed prostheses supported byBranemark implants in edentulous jaws: a study of treatment from the time of prosthesis placement to the first annual checkup. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1991;6:270-76. 1813395

Ramsey CD, Ritter RG. Utilization of digital technologies for fabrication of definitive implant-supported restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012;24:299-308. 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00481.x23025311

Miguel S, Ana GP, Inês M, Christian C. Fully digital workflow, integrating dental scan, smile design and CAD-CAM:case report. BMC Oral Health 2018;7:18:134. 10.1186/s12903-018-0597-030086753PMC6081948

Lee SJ, Betensky RA, Gianneschi GE, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin Oral Implants Res 2015;26:715-19. 10.1111/clr.1237524720423PMC4428303

Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Impl Res 2016;27:465-72. 10.1111/clr.1256725682892

Ender A, Zimmermann M, Mehl, A. Accuracy of complete- and partial-arch impressions of actual intraoral scanning systems in vitro. Int J Comput Dent 22:11-9. 30848250

Hidemichi K, Wataru H, Futoshi K, Kyoko T, Toshiyuki T, Jun Y, et al. Accuracy and practicality of intraoral scanner in dentistry: A literature review. J Prosthodontic Res 2020;64:109-13. 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.07.01031474576

Ender A, Attin T, Mehl A. In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:313-20. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.09.01126548890

Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111:186-94. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.01024210732

Sun, LJ, Lee JS, Choo HH, Hwang HS, Lee KM. Reproducibility of an intraoral scanner: A comparison between in-vivo and ex-vivo scans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018;154:305-10. 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.09.02230075932

Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scanbodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2018;120:343-52. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.02929627211

Shim JS, Lee JS, Lee JY, Choi YJ, Shin SW, Ryu JJ. Effect of software version and parameter settings on the marginal and internal adaptation of crowns fabricated with the CAD/CAM system. J Appl Oral Sci 2015;23:515-22. 10.1590/1678-77572015008126537722PMC4621944

Choi BH, Jeong SM. Digital flapless implantology. 1st ed. Seoul: JeeSung Publishing Co.; 2015. p. 32-51.

Barbero BR, Ureta ES. Comparative study of different digitization techniques and their accuracy.Comput Aided Des 2011;43:188-206. 10.1016/j.cad.2010.11.005

Rudolph H, Quaas S, Luthardt RG. Matching point clouds: limits and possibilities. Int J Comput Dent 2002;5:155-64. 12680049

Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y. Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: a laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent 2017;177:93-101. 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.00827460324

Kurz M, Attin T, Mehl A. Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:2035-43. 10.1007/s00784-015-1440-525743568

Chan DC, Chung AK, Haines J, Yau EH, Kuo C. The accuracy of optical scanning: influence of convergence and die preparation. Oper Dent 2011;36:486-91. 10.2341/10-067-L21834706

Lee, KM. Comparison of two intraoral scanners based on three-dimensional surface analysis. Prog Orthod 2018;19:6. 10.1186/s40510-018-0205-529430612PMC6890885

Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patient's perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:1-7. 10.1186/1472-6831-14-1024479892PMC3913616

Information

Publisher :The Korean Academy of Oral & Maxillofacial Implantology
Publisher(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회
Journal Title :Journal of implantology and applied sciences
Journal Title(Ko) :대한구강악안면임플란트학회지
Volume : 26
No :1
Pages :15-26
Received Date : 2021-11-01
Revised Date : 2022-02-22
Accepted Date : 2022-03-17
DOI :https://doi.org/10.32542/implantology.2022002

Journal of implantology and applied sciences ISSN:2765-7833(Print) 2765-7841(Online) 대한구강악안면임플란트학회지

All Issue