Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study

Dental restorations are increasingly manufactured by CAD/CAM systems. Currently, there are two alternatives for digitizing dental implants: direct intra-oral data capturing or indirect from a master cast, both with transfer caps (scanbodies). The aim of this study was the evaluation of the fit of the scanbodies and their ability of reposition. At the site of the first molars and canines, implants were placed bilaterally in a polymer lower arch model (original model), and an impression was taken for fabricating a stone cast (stone model). Ten white-light scans were obtained from the original and the stone model with the scanbodies in place. The scanbodies were retrieved after each scan and re-attached to the same implant or lab analogue. The first scan of the series served as control in both groups. The subsequent nine scans and control were superimposed using inspection software to identify the discrepancies of the four scanbodies in both experimental groups. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancy of the scanbodies was 39 μm (±58 μm) on the original implants versus 11 μm (±17 μm) on the lab analogues. The difference in scanbody discrepancy between original implants and lab analogues was statistically significant (p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). Scanbody discrepancy was higher on original implants than on lab analogues. Fit and reproducibility of the scanbodies on original implants should be improved to achieve higher accuracy of implant-supported CAD/CAM fabricated restorations.

[1]  A B Carr,et al.  Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. , 1992, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[2]  P P Binon,et al.  The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. , 1996, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[3]  K. Nelson,et al.  Impact of abutment rotation and angulation on marginal fit: theoretical considerations. , 2010, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[4]  R Masek,et al.  Margin isolation for optical impressions and adhesion. , 2005, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[5]  J. Lindhe,et al.  Experimental breakdown of peri-implant and periodontal tissues. A study in the beagle dog. , 1992, Clinical oral implants research.

[6]  Rainer Koch,et al.  Comparison of the three-dimensional correctness of impression techniques: a randomized controlled trial. , 2010, Quintessence international.

[7]  S E Eckert,et al.  Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[8]  G. Christensen Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? , 2008, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[9]  G. Dahlén,et al.  Microbial findings at failing implants. , 1999, Clinical oral implants research.

[10]  M Augthun,et al.  Microbial findings of deep peri-implant bone defects. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  W M Al-Omari,et al.  The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials. , 2007, The Journal of clinical dentistry.

[12]  F. Beuer,et al.  Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations , 2008, BDJ.

[13]  Neil L. Starr,et al.  Clinical Methods for Evaluating Implant Framework Fit , 1999 .

[14]  J I Nicholls,et al.  Tolerance measurements of various implant components. , 1997, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[15]  S A Aquilino,et al.  Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature. , 1999, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[16]  C. Ercoli,et al.  The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. , 2008, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  B R Lang,et al.  Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. , 1996, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  E A Patterson,et al.  Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  M. Çehreli,et al.  The Significance Of Passive Framework Fit In Implant Prosthodontics: Current Status , 2001, Implant dentistry.

[20]  Matthias Karl,et al.  In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures. , 2004, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[21]  K. Nelson,et al.  Theoretical Considerations: Implant Positional Index Design , 2009, Journal of dental research.

[22]  S Quaas,et al.  Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. , 2005, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[23]  Marco Del Corso,et al.  Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. , 2009, Clinical implant dentistry and related research.

[24]  T J Balshi,et al.  An analysis and management of fractured implants: a clinical report. , 1996, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[25]  K. Nelson,et al.  Theoretical Optimum of Implant Positional Index Design , 2009, Journal of dental research.

[26]  P P Binon,et al.  Implants and components: entering the new millennium. , 2000, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[27]  A Ender,et al.  Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. , 2009, International journal of computerized dentistry.

[28]  H. G. Filho,et al.  Evaluation of Transfer Impressions for Osseointegrated Implants at Various Angulations , 2004, Implant dentistry.

[29]  Balshi Tj,et al.  An analysis and management of fractured implants: a clinical report. , 1996 .