Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study.

PURPOSE Sufficient data are not currently available on how the various geometries of scan bodies and different scan strategies affect the quality of digital impressions of implants. The purpose of this study was to present new data on these two topics and give clinicians a basis for decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS A titanium master model containing three Nobelreplace SelectTM implants (Nobelbiocare Services AG, Zurich, Switzerland) was digitized using an ATOS industrial non-contact scanner. Digitization was repeated three times with different types of scan bodies integrated into the implants: 3Shape A/S, nt-trading GmbH, and TEAMZIEREIS GmbH. These three scans served as virtual master models. The titanium master model was then scanned with the TRIOS3© digital intraoral scanner (3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark), which was used for two different scanning strategies. Strategy A was a one-step procedure that included both the titanium master model and the integrated scan bodies. Strategy B comprised two steps. First, a digital overlay was performed with a scan of the titanium master model without integrated scan bodies. A second scan was performed with the titanium master model and integrated scan bodies. By repeating both strategies 10 times for each type of scan body, 60 scans were generated and the corresponding standard tessellation language data sets overlaid with the corresponding virtual master model. Deviations in the resulting superimpositions were calculated and evaluated separately in the individual axes (x, y, z) and in three-dimensional space (Euclidean distance). Statistical evaluation was performed using the R-project software. Level of significance was determined at P≤0.05. RESULTS With regard to the geometry of the scan bodies, strategy A significantly influenced the accuracy of the digital implant impression in regards to Euclidean distance (P = 0.003). No significant difference was found for strategy B in this context. Comparing the two scan strategies revealed that strategy A achieved significantly higher accuracy overall (P = 0.031). CONCLUSION The quality of digital intraoral impressions seems to be influenced by both the geometry of the scan body and the scan strategy. For clinical practice, the one-step scan strategy seems beneficial. Furthermore, the scan bodies of 3Shape showed a potential clinical advantage. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

[1]  P. Vallittu,et al.  Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review , 2018, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[2]  J. Katsoulis,et al.  Impact of digital intraoral scan strategies on the impression accuracy using the TRIOS Pod scanner. , 2016, Quintessence international.

[3]  Albert Mehl,et al.  Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[4]  W. J. van der Meer,et al.  Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[5]  Tabea V Flügge,et al.  The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant‐supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2018, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  Mutlu Özcan,et al.  Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques for Implant Restorations , 2019, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[7]  Burak Yilmaz,et al.  Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review , 2018, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[8]  Hakimeh Siadat,et al.  Three-dimensional accuracy of implant and abutment level impression techniques: effect on marginal discrepancy. , 2011, The Journal of oral implantology.

[9]  Sang J. Lee,et al.  Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. , 2015, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  Wael Att,et al.  A Novel Method to Evaluate Precision of Optical Implant Impressions with Commercial Scan Bodies—An Experimental Approach , 2017, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[11]  Matthias Karl,et al.  A new triple-scan protocol for 3D fit assessment of dental restorations. , 2011, Quintessence international.

[12]  A. R. Shamshiri,et al.  A Clinical Comparative Study of 3-Dimensional Accuracy between Digital and Conventional Implant Impression Techniques. , 2019, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[13]  G. de Souza,et al.  Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Implant Impression Approach: A Three-Dimensional Comparative In Vitro Analysis. , 2017, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[14]  Ahmad Kutkut,et al.  A Simplified Technique for Implant-Abutment Level Impression after Soft Tissue Adaptation around Provisional Restoration , 2016, Dentistry journal.

[15]  J. Seidt,et al.  Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. , 2019, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[16]  Yeganeh Memari,et al.  Marginal Adaptation of CAD/CAM All‐Ceramic Crowns Made by Different Impression Methods: A Literature Review , 2019, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[17]  H. Nickenig,et al.  The impact of the fabrication method on the three-dimensional accuracy of an implant surgery template. , 2017, Journal of cranio-maxillo-facial surgery : official publication of the European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery.

[18]  German O Gallucci,et al.  Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study. , 2012, Clinical oral implants research.

[19]  Josef Schweiger,et al.  A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[20]  Weili Han,et al.  Design of Complete Dentures by Adopting CAD Developed for Fixed Prostheses , 2018, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[21]  I. Naert,et al.  Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. , 2016, Clinical oral implants research.

[22]  Werner Adler,et al.  Accuracy of impression scanning compared with stone casts of implant impressions. , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[23]  T. Joda,et al.  Time efficiency, difficulty, and operator's preference comparing digital and conventional implant impressions: a randomized controlled trial , 2017, Clinical oral implants research.

[24]  N. Gellrich,et al.  Non-radiological method for three-dimensional implant position evaluation using an intraoral scan method. , 2014, Clinical oral implants research.

[25]  Francisco Martínez-Rus,et al.  Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. , 2015, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[26]  M. Baig,et al.  Evaluation of accuracy of complete-arch multiple-unit abutment-level dental implant impressions using different impression and splinting materials. , 2013, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[27]  Wael Att,et al.  Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners. , 2016, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[28]  Jan-Frederik Güth,et al.  Digital impressions in dentistry—accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners , 2019, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[29]  R Nedelcu,et al.  Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. , 2017, Journal of dentistry.

[30]  Keng Mun Wong,et al.  In Vitro Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: The Effect of Implant Angulation. , 2017, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.