Effect of splinting scan bodies on the trueness of complete-arch digital implant scans with 5 different intraoral scanners.
Journal
The Journal of prosthetic dentistry
ISSN: 1097-6841
Titre abrégé: J Prosthet Dent
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376364
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2023
01 Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
23
01
2023
revised:
13
06
2023
accepted:
14
06
2023
medline:
4
8
2023
pubmed:
4
8
2023
entrez:
3
8
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The absence of fixed reference points can affect the trueness of complete-arch intraoral digital implant scans. The effect of splinting intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) or the inclusion of artificial landmarks (AL) on the trueness of complete-arch digital implant scans is still unclear. The purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of splinting ISBs or the inclusion of AL on the trueness of complete-arch digital implant scans with 5 intraoral scanners (IOSs). Six tissue-level dental implants (Straumann Tissue Level) were placed in an edentulous patient, and the correspondent definitive cast was digitized with a desktop scanner (IScan4D LS3i) to obtain the reference digital cast. Digital scans (n=10) were performed with 5 IOSs: TRIOS 4, Virtuo Vivo, Medit i700, iTero Element 5D, and Cerec Primescan. Three different scanning techniques were evaluated: conventional (cIOSs), splinted (sIOSs), and AL (AL-IOSs). The scan data obtained were imported into a metrology software program and superimposed to the reference digital cast by using a best-fit algorithm. The overall deviations of the positions of the ISBs were evaluated by using the root-mean-square (RMS) error (α=.05). The mean ±standard deviation trueness values for the cIOSs, sIOSs, and AL-IOSs groups were 48 ±8 µm, 53 ±7 µm, and 49 ±11 µm, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (P=.06). Significant differences were found for the IOSs used with each technique (P<.001). Primescan (27 ±4 µm cIOSs; 28 ±3 µm sIOSs; 31 ±3 µm AL-IOSs) showed significantly higher trueness than iTero 5D (47 ±5 µm cIOSs; 47 ±4 µm sIOSs; 50 ±6 µm AL-IOSs) (P=.002) and TRIOS 4 (93 ±18 µm cIOSs; 76 ±18 µm sIOSs; 107 ±13 µm AL-IOSs) (P=.001) for all techniques. In addition, no significant differences were found between the techniques by using iTero 5D or Primescan (P=.348 and P=.059, respectively). The cIOSs, sIOSs, and AL-IOSs techniques showed similar trueness. The IOS used influenced the trueness of complete-arch digital implant scans.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37537105
pii: S0022-3913(23)00420-1
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.06.015
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.