Effect of a Novel 'Scan Body' on the In Vitro Scanning Accuracy of Full-Arch Implant Impressions

Overview

Journal Int Dent J

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2024 Feb 17

PMID 38368235

Authors

Tingting Zhang

Bo Yang

Ruihan Ge

Chaobiao Zhang

Hui Zhang

Yan Wang

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: This in vitro study aimed to determine whether a newly designed arcuate scan body can improve intraoral scanning accuracy for implant rehabilitation of edentulous jaws.

Material And Methods: A master model containing 4 implant abutment replicas was fabricated and digitized with different scan bodies using an intraoral scanner. Four types of scan bodies were evaluated: original scan bodies (group OS), computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) scan bodies without extension (group CS), CAD/CAM scan bodies with straight extension (group CSS), and CAD/CAM scan bodies with arcuate extension (group CSA). Conventional splinted open-tray impressions (group CI) were used as controls. The master model and the poured casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner. Impressions were repeated 10 times each in 5 groups. Scans in standard tessellation language format were exported to reverse engineering software and root mean square (RMS) values were used for trueness and precision assessments. In each group, 45 RMS values were acquired for precision evaluation and 10 RMS values were obtained for trueness assessment. Statistical evaluation was performed with the Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn-Bonferroni test (α = 0.05).

Results: The median trueness values were 41.40, 55.95, 39.80, 39.75, and 22.30 μm for group OS, CS, CSS, CSA, and CI, respectively. CI showed better trueness than OS (P = .020), CS (P < .001), and CSS (P = .035). The median precisions for group OS, CS, CSS, CSA, and CI were 47.40, 51.50, 43.90, 25.20, and 24.60 μm. respectively. The precision of CSA and CI were higher than OS (P < .001), CS (P < .001), and CSS (P < .001). Between CI and CSA, there was no significant difference (P = 1.000).

Conclusions: For full-arch implant rehabilitation, the scan body with arcuate extension could improve the intraoral scanning precision and showed similar 3-dimensional discrepancy compared to conventional splinted open-tray impressions.

Citing Articles

Complex Full-Arch Treatment with Zygomatic Implants, Fully Digital Protocol with Scan Flag Intraoral Scanning, and 3D-Printed Temporary Reconstructions in a Periodontal Patient-A Case Report.

Nowicki A, Osypko K Biomedicines. 2024; 12(11).

PMID: 39595181 PMC: 11592135. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12112617.

[Research progress on accuracy of intraoral digital impressions for implant-supported prostheses in edentulous jaw].

Zhu J, Zhao K, Gu X Zhejiang Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2024; 53(5):569-577.

PMID: 38832462 PMC: 11528135. DOI: 10.3724/zdxbyxb-2024-0079.

References

Thanasrisuebwong P, Kulchotirat T, Anunmana C . Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021; 13(2):107-116. PMC: 8110739. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2021.13.2.107. View

Pan Y, Tam J, Tsoi J, Lam W, Pow E . Reproducibility of laboratory scanning of multiple implants in complete edentulous arch: Effect of scan bodies. J Dent. 2020; 96:103329. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103329. View

Gomez-Polo M, Donmez M, Cakmak G, Yilmaz B, Revilla-Leon M . Influence of implant scan body design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on intraoral scanning accuracy: A systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2023; 32(S2):165-180. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13774. View

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. 2016; 117(1):93-101. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.04.008. View

Mitrirattanakul S, Neoh S, Chalarmchaichaloenkit J, Limthanabodi C, Trerayapiwat C, Pipatpajong N . Accuracy of the Intraoral Scanner for Detection of Tooth Wear. Int Dent J. 2022; 73(1):56-62. PMC: 9875261. DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.06.004. View

Carneiro Pereira A, de Freitas R, Campos M, Torres A, de Medeiros A, Carreiro A . Trueness of a device for intraoral scanning to capture the angle and distance between implants in edentulous mandibular arches. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 128(6):1310-1317. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.02.039. View

Kanjanasavitree P, Thammajaruk P, Guazzato M . Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans. J Dent. 2022; 125:104266. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104266. View

Ke Y, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Chen H, Sun Y . Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2023; 135:104561. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104561. View

Pozzi A, Arcuri L, Lio F, Papa A, Nardi A, Londono J . Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2022; 119:104072. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104072. View

10.

Fluegge T, Att W, Metzger M, Nelson K . A Novel Method to Evaluate Precision of Optical Implant Impressions with Commercial Scan Bodies-An Experimental Approach. J Prosthodont. 2015; 26(1):34-41. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12362. View

11.

Lerner H, Nagy K, Luongo F, Luongo G, Admakin O, Mangano F . Tolerances in the production of six different implant scanbodies: a comparative study. Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34(5):591–599. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.7379. View

12.

Papaspyridakos P, Chen Y, Alshawaf B, Kang K, Finkelman M, Chronopoulos V . Digital workflow: In vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 124(5):589-593. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.10.029. View

13.

Retana L, Nejat A, Pozzi A . Effect of splinting scan bodies on trueness of complete-arch implant impression using different intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2022; 26(1):19-28. DOI: 10.3290/j.ijcd.b2599297. View

14.

Ahlholm P, Sipila K, Vallittu P, Jakonen M, Kotiranta U . Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review. J Prosthodont. 2016; 27(1):35-41. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12527. View

15.

Schmidt A, Billig J, Schlenz M, Rehmann P, Wostmann B . Influence of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanbodies on Implant Position: Differences in Manufacturing Tolerances. Int J Prosthodont. 2019; 32(5):430-432. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.6371. View

16.

Gomez-Polo M, Ortega R, Sallorenzo A, Agustin-Panadero R, Barmak A, Kois J . Influence of the surface humidity, implant angulation, and interimplant distance on the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans. J Dent. 2022; 127:104307. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104307. View

17.

Lyu M, Di P, Lin Y, Jiang X . Accuracy of impressions for multiple implants: A comparative study of digital and conventional techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 128(5):1017-1023. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016. View

18.

Jivanescu A, Rotar P, Hategan S, Pricop C, Rus R, Goguta L . Clinical Factors Influence the Trueness of Intra-oral Scanning. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2019; 27(1):51-55. DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_01861Jivanescu05. View

19.

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(7):625-633. DOI: 10.1111/clr.13598. View

20.

Wu H, Wang J, Chen G, Huang X, Deng F, Li Y . Effect of novel prefabricated auxiliary devices attaching to scan bodies on the accuracy of intraoral scanning of complete-arch with multiple implants: An in-vitro study. J Dent. 2023; 138:104702. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104702. View