Figure 3 - uploaded by Christa L Lilly
Content may be subject to copyright.
Zoomed view of the deviation between the constructed elements corresponding to the scan body cylinder and top plane of the reference and test scans of Group D in the 3D meteorology software.
Source publication
Purpose:
Implants placed at variable depths may vary the amount of visible scannable surface of a scan body. Intraoral scanner technology uses advanced optical principles to record the surface of the scan body to accurately capture the implant position. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect implant placement depth has on the accur...
Context in source publication
Similar publications
Background:
To determine and compare how three-dimensionally accurate scan bodies of different geometric shapes are placed over 6 implants (platform or crestal module).
Material and methods:
A master plaster model was made with 6 INHEX STD implant analogs made by Mozo-Grau S.A and 4 scan body types were compared. Several groups were made: a cont...
Citations
... 4,5 Saliva, patient movement, and posterior site accessibility have been reported to negatively influence implant scan accuracy. 6 Factors related to variations in the ISB design that have been reported to influence implant scan accuracy include geometry, 7-16 scan region material, [17][18][19][20][21] angulation, 9,22 scan surface error, 23 tightening torque magnitude, [24][25][26][27] scan surface modifications, [28][29][30] sterilization and reuse, 25,31 visible height, 22,[32][33][34][35] base region material, 36 and machining tolerances. 37,38 Despite available research, a recent systematic review concluded that the published scientific evidence regarding the optimal design of an ISB is inconclusive. ...
Statement of problem. Implant scan bodies (ISBs) present with a variety of features including diverse design geometries and manufacturing materials. It is unclear how these features influence the congruence between the clinically obtained mesh file and the software-based library file of the scan body during the alignment stage within the computer-aided design (CAD) software program. It is also uncertain how these features influence the scanning accuracy of different scanners.
Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate how various scan body shapes, manufactured from different materials, influence the scanning accuracy of 6 intraoral scanners (IOSs) and 1 desktop scanner.
Material and methods. A 3-dimensionally (3D) printed cast fitted with 4 different implant analogs and their corresponding scan bodies (Straumann Cares RN Mono; Straumann, MIS V3 SP; MIS, Paltop SP; Paltop and TV70; TRI) was scanned using 6 intraoral (Primescan; Dentsply Sirona, TRIOS 3; 3Shape A/S, TRIOS 5; 3Shape A/S, Medit i-700; Medit, Fussen S6000; Fussen, and Runyes 3DS; Runyes) and 1 desktop scanners (7series; Dental Wings). A metrology mesh comparison software program was utilized for analysis. Inferences were drawn using a univariate repeated measures 2-way ANOVA. Post-hoc analysis was conducted with pairwise Bonferroni tests (α=.05).
Results. A significant 2-way interaction was found between Scanner model and Scan Body model, (F (5.518, 49.659)=36.251, P<.001). The mean absolute deviation for the different scanners ranged between 21 μm and 35 μm across all scan bodies but the model of the scan body influenced the deviation of the scanner. The mean absolute deviation for the different scan bodies ranged from 19 μm to 46 μm across all scanners but the model of the scanner influenced the deviation of the scan body.
Conclusions. Regarding implant scan body features, a design with less complex shape and fewer sharp line angles and a design with a cylindrical shape exhibited statistically significantly higher congruence between the clinical mesh and the software library files. Regarding intraoral scanners, Primescan had a statistically significantly lower mean absolute deviation compared with the other scanners across all scan bodies tested.
... Major limitations for the use of ISBs with occlusal pillars are implant depth, implant angle, and implant arch distribution. 15,16 Therefore, multiunit abutments were used in the maxillary arch to compensate for various implant depths and angles. Irregular arch distribution of ISBs could interfere with the use of occlusal pillars. ...
This clinical report introduces a novel clinical technique to create a 3D virtual patient for transferring the edentulous maxillary arch position with maxillomandibular relationship by using a facial scan device and an intraoral scanner and omitting CBCT imaging.
... [1][2][3] The accuracy of complete arch intraoral implant scans has been analyzed with contradictory results being reported, 4-7 possibly because intraoral scanning accuracy can be reduced by operator-and patient-related factors. 8,9 These include ambient lighting conditions, 10,11 IOS calibration, 12 scanning pattern, 13 extension of the scan, 14 tissue mobility, 15 implant position (depth, angulation, position in the dental arch, and inter-implant distance), [16][17][18] and implant scan body design. 19,20 These factors should be carefully considered to maximize the efficiency and accuracy of the IOS selected when obtaining intraoral implant scans. ...
... However, as opposed to the IOS used in this study, they employed desktop optical scanners for their investigation, which might contribute to producing results with higher definitions. In 2022, Sequeira et al. 52 studied how the depth of the implant could affect the accuracy of digital scans generated by an IOS. They concluded that the depth of the implant and the scan body's visible, exposed length affect digital impressions in terms of accuracy. ...
... 58 Meanwhile, insufficient occlusal and tight proximal contacts may ensure implant submergence in the workflow and may finally compromise the overall aesthetics of the final implant prosthesis, albeit in a minor way. 52 Drawing comparisons between the depth of placed implants and substantial deviations in the impressions is challenging due to the disparities in study design and assessment methodology. Therefore, the researchers recommend further examination of the clinical implications and effects of the combination of intraoral variables and variations in SB dimensions concerning the impact of implant depth on digital images' accuracy and the consequent misfit of fixed implant-retained prostheses; furthermore, more homogeneous computational methods should be established for measuring data. ...
... The desktop optical scanner technique has been confirmed in different studies to be used as a reference device for assessing the accuracy of intraoral scanners. 37,52,54,[59][60][61] The laboratory scanner's manufacturer claims an accuracy of 5 µm (ISO); however, since the current technology can yield a precision below 10 µm for complex anatomical and physiological reasons, 61 using two different scanning methods between the test and control scans in this study could be a potential source in producing misleading results. To investigate the effect of varying implant depths with angulated implant positions, the same scanning methods would be desirable to remove any potential confounding factors. ...
Purpose:
The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess how implant depth could affect the three-dimensional positional accuracy of digital impressions made from angulated implants.
Materials and methods:
Four modified maxillary models were printed and divided into four study groups. In each model, two angulated implant analogs were placed at the sites of the first premolar and first molar at four different depths of 1 (G1), 2 (G2), 3 (G3), and 4 (G4) mm from the models' edentate area. Scan bodies were connected to the analogs, and one operator made 10 full-arch scans for each master model using an intraoral scanner. Afterward, the marginal gingival part of all models was removed, and digital scans were performed for each model using a laboratory scanner to achieve a reference STL file as the control group. One-way ANOVA and Leven's tests were used to measure and compare the 3D distance deviations across research groups after the superimposing test and control scans.
Results:
A significant difference between research groups was revealed by trueness and precision analysis (p<.001). The trueness and precision results obtained for G1 and G4 were significantly better than those for G2 and G3 (p<.05).
Conclusion:
This study demonstrated that implant depth could affect the digital implant impressions' 3D positional accuracy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
... 36 However, the effect of some of these variables differ when obtaining intraoral digital implant scans namely ambient lighting conditions, 37 scanning pattern, [38][39][40] and interdental space (adjacent tooth and implant scan body). Furthermore, additional factors should be considered when recording intraoral implant digital scans such as implant depth and angulation, [41][42][43][44][45] inter-implant distance, 27,46,47 and implant scan body design (material, geometry, and retention system). [48][49][50][51][52][53][54] The factors that can decrease intraoral scanning accuracy generate an accumulated scanning distortion. ...
... The intraoral condition of the patient may impact the accuracy of IOSs. 3 Specifically, when recording the 3D position of implants by using IOSs, additional factors should be understood and considered 3 including the arch being scanned (maxilla vs. mandible), implant position in the dental arch, inter-implant distance, 27,46,47 implant depth and angulation, [41][42][43][44][45] and interdental space between the ISB and the adjacent teeth. ...
... The distance between two adjacent implants and implant angulation and depth have been identified as factors that can reduce intraoral scanning accuracy (Table 7). 3,27,[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]83 A limited number of studies have examined the influence of interimplant distance on scanning accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. 27,46,47,83 The results obtained by these TA B L E 7 Studies assessing the influence of the inter-implant distance and implant position on the scanning accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. ...
PURPOSE
To report the means to maximize the predictability and accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans through the evaluation of operator and patient‐related factors.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search of published articles related to factors that can decrease the scanning accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans was completed in four data sources:MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Web of Science. All studies related to variables that can influence the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs) were considered. These variables included ambient lighting, scanning pattern, implant scan body (ISB) design, techniques for splinting ISBs, arch location, implant position, and inter‐implant distance.
RESULTS
Among operator‐related factors, ambient lighting conditions, scanning pattern, and ISB design (material, geometry, and retention design) can impact the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal ISB for maximizing IOS accuracy is unclear; however, polymer ISB can wear with multiple reuse and sterilization methods. Among patient‐related factors, additional variables should be considered, namely arch (maxillary vs. mandibular arch), implant position in the arch, inter‐implant distance, implant depth, and angulation.
CONCLUSIONS
Ambient lighting conditions should be established based on the IOS selected to optimize the accuracy of intraoral digital implant scans. The optimal scanning pattern may vary based on the IOS, clinical situation, and the number of implants. The optimal ISB design may vary depending on the IOS used. Metallic implant scan bodies are preferred over polymer ISB designs to minimize wear due to multiple use and sterilization distortion. Among patient‐related factors, additional variables should be considered namely the arch scanned, implant position in the arch, inter‐implant distance, implant depth, and angulation. The impact of these factors may vary depending on the IOS selected.
... The optimal situation is when the implant is placed at a tissue level and, thus, the total height of the ISB is visible. 39 This means that scanning accuracy is reduced in case of subgingival implant location. 39 In addition, the reduced clinical height of the ISB affects negatively accuracy, either in parallel or angulated implants. ...
... 39 This means that scanning accuracy is reduced in case of subgingival implant location. 39 In addition, the reduced clinical height of the ISB affects negatively accuracy, either in parallel or angulated implants. 28 The results of another study however, are in contradiction to this statement, supporting that shorter ISBs may be easier to scan in edentulous jaws. ...
Objective:
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the influence of the characteristics of intraoral scan bodies (ISBs) on the accuracy of intraoral scanning.
Materials and methods:
An electronic search was conducted through PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus and Cochrane Library, up to March 2023. The literature search intended to retrieve all relevant clinical and in vitro studies about the effect that the various properties of ISBs may have on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanning. Only publications in English language were selected with animal studies, case reports, case series, technique presentation articles and expert opinions being excluded.
Results:
A total of 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. They were published between 2019 and 2023 and were all in vitro studies. Among the parameters described, the scan body material, position, geometry, height, diameter, and fixation torque were evaluated. The most common materials used for ISBs were polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and titanium alloys. The diameter and position of ISBs seemed to affect the trueness of implant impressions. Subgingival implant position and decreased ISB height affected negatively the trueness of scanning. Geometrical characteristics of ISBs also affect the implant impression accuracy, especially the bevel location and the types of designing modifications.
Conclusions:
The characteristics of the currently used ISBs vary widely and the available scientific evidence is not yet conclusive about the optimal design of ISB. The implant impression accuracy achieved by any of the studied parameters is encouraging. Clinical studies are however necessary for more concrete conclusions.
Clinical significance:
ISBs play a vital role in the digital workflow and influence significantly the accuracy and fit of implant restorations. More clinical trials are needed in order to conclude to the optimal characteristics of ISBs which would further enhance the success of the restorations.
... Inconsistencies are present in the literature regarding the influence of interimplant distance, implant position in the dental arch, and implant angulation and depth on intraoral scanning accuracy. [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] • In general, scanning discrepancies increases as interimplant distance increases. 46,47 • The implant positioned in the dental arch at the end of the intraoral digital scan obtains significantly higher distortion than the contralateral implant. ...
... [36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] • In general, scanning discrepancies increases as interimplant distance increases. 46,47 • The implant positioned in the dental arch at the end of the intraoral digital scan obtains significantly higher distortion than the contralateral implant. 45 • Contradictory results have been reported regarding the influence of implant angulation on intraoral scanning accuracy. ...
... 50 Contradictory results have been reported regarding the influence of implant angulation and depth on intraoral scanning accuracy. [41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] Some studies have reported that implant angulation decreased the accuracy of the digital scans compared to the conventional impressions, or that implant angulation decreased the scanning accuracy of IOSs. 41,44,46,47,50 However, other studies have shown that implant angulation had no effect on intraoral scanning accuracy. ...
Objectives:
To describe the factors related to patient intraoral conditions that impact the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these influencing factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision-making and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans.
Overview:
Variables related to intraoral conditions of the patient that can influence the scanning accuracy of IOSs include tooth type, presence of interdental spaces, arch width variations, palate characteristics, wetness, existing restorations, characteristics of the surface being digitized, edentulous areas, interimplant distance, position, angulation, and depth of existing implants, and implant scan body selection.
Conclusions:
The knowledge and understanding of the patient's intraoral conditions that can impact the scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.
Clinical significance:
The patient's intraoral conditions, or patient factors, can significantly impact intraoral scanning accuracy. Dental professionals must know and understand these influencing patient factors to maximize the accuracy of IOSs.
