Keywords
Dental implants
Dental prosthesis
Dental prosthesis, implant-supported
How to Cite
Abstract
Aim: To analyze the accuracy of extraoral systems (Ceramill Map400+, AutoScan-DS200+, and E2) in full implantprosthetic rehabilitation three-dimensionally. Methods: A metallic edentulous maxilla with four implants was digitalized by a contact scanner (MDX-40 - Roland, control) and used as a control image to compare with other images generated by three laboratory scanners (10 samples per group). Letters identified all the four components: A and D angled 45º, and B and C parallel. The BioCAD software exported the images (.STL) to compare and verify deviations of the analogs on the X, Y, and Z axes. The nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test and the two-way ANOVA on ranks with a post hoc Tukey test analyzed the data with 5% significance. Results: No statistical differences were observed in the accuracy between the extraoral scanners (p=0.0806). However, when analyzing only the components, component D was more accurate when scanned with Ceramill Map400+ compared with AutoScan DS200+ (p<0.001) and with E2 (p=0.002). Conclusions: All extraoral systems assessed showed digitalization accuracy but with more deviations in angled implants. The Ceramill Map400+ scanner showed the best results for the digital impression of a complete arch.
References
Carlsson GE, Omar R. The future of complete dentures in oral rehabilitation. A critical review. J Oral Rehabil. 2010;37(2):143-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02039.x.
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. 2017;26(1):34-41. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12362.
Horita S, Sugiura T, Yamamoto K, Murakami K, Imai Y, Kirita T. Biomechanical analysis of immediately loaded implants according to the "All-on-Four" concept. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(2):123-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.08.002.
Bilmenoglu C, Cilingir A, Geckili O, Bilhan H, Bilgin T. In vitro comparison of trueness of 10 intraoral scanners for implant-supported complete-arch fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(6):755-60. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.017.
Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360-7. doi: 10.1111/clr.12994.
Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, Zechner W, Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64(2):128-36. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001.
Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital implant impression technique accuracy: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26(6):929-35. doi: 10.1097/id.0000000000000683.
Stimmelmayr M, Güth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit--an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(3):851-6. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5.
Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27(4):465-72. doi: 10.1111/clr.12567.
Moura RV, Kojima AN, Saraceni CHC, Bassolli L, Balducci I, Özcan M, et al. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Conventional and Digital Impression Techniques for Implant Restorations. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):e530-e5. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12799.
Alsharbaty MHM, Alikhasi M, Zarrati S, Shamshiri AR. A Clinical comparative study of 3-dimensional accuracy between digital and conventional implant impression techniques. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(4):e902-e8. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12764.
Lee SJ, Kim SW, Lee JJ, Cheong CW. Comparison of intraoral and extraoral digital scanners: evaluation of surface topography and precision. Dent J (Basel). 2020;8(2):52. doi: 10.3390/dj8020052.
Ahrberg D, Lauer HC, Ahrberg M, Weigl P. Evaluation of fit and efficiency of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic restorations based on direct and indirect digitalization: a double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20(2):291-300. doi: 10.1007/s00784-015-1504-6.
Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1253-62. doi: 10.1007/s00784-017-2217-9.
Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Nyström I, Rydén J, Thor A. Accuracy and precision of 3 intraoral scanners and accuracy of conventional impressions: A novel in vivo analysis method. J Dent. 2018;69:110-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.12.006.
Vafaee F, Firouz F, Mohajeri M, Hashemi R, Ghorbani Gholiabad S. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (precision and trueness) of seven dental scanners. J Dent (Shiraz). 2021;22(1):8-13. doi: 10.30476/dentjods.2020.83485.1047.
Emir F, Ayyıldız S. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of eight extraoral laboratory scanners with a complete-arch model: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63(4):434-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.03.001.
Gherlone E, Capparé P, Vinci R, Ferrini F, Gastaldi G, Crespi R. Conventional versus digital impressions for "All-on-Four" restorations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016;31(2):324-30. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3900.
Rego MR, Kitahara FM, Santiago LC. [Acrylic resin: relation between surface treatment and bacterial adhesion]. Cienc Odontol Bras. 2005;8(3):92-8. Portuguese.
Papaspyridakos P, Vazouras K, Chen YW, Kotina E, Natto Z, Kang K, et al. Digital vs conventional implant impressions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(8):660-78. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13211.
Türker N, Büyükkaplan US, Sadowsky SJ, Özarslan MM. Finite element stress analysis of applied forces to implants and supporting tissues using the "All-on-Four" Concept with different occlusal schemes. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(2):185-94. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13004.
Mennito AS, Evans ZP, Nash J, Bocklet C, Lauer Kelly A, Bacro T, et al. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of complete arch digital impressions on a human maxilla using seven different intraoral digital impression systems and a laboratory scanner. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31(4):369-77. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12485.
Rudolph H, Salmen H, Moldan M, Kuhn K, Sichwardt V, Wöstmann B, et al. Accuracy of intraoral and extraoral digital data acquisition for dental restorations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2016;24(1):85-94. doi: 10.1590/1678-775720150266.
Resende CCD, Barbosa TAQ, Moura GF, Tavares LDN, Rizzante FAP, George FM, et al. Influence of operator experience, scanner type, and scan size on 3D scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125(2):294-9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.12.011.
Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):735-45. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02965-2.
Serag M, Nassar TA, Avondoglio D, Weiner S. A Comparative study of the accuracy of dies made from digital intraoral scanning vs. elastic impressions: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2018;27(1):88-93. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12481.
Piedra-Cascón W, Methani MM, Quesada-Olmo N, Jiménez-Martínez MJ, Revilla-León M. Scanning accuracy of nondental structured light extraoral scanners compared with that of a dental-specific scanner. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;126(1):110-4. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.04.009.
Atieh MA, Ritter AV, Ko CC, Duqum I. Accuracy evaluation of intraoral optical impressions: A clinical study using a reference appliance. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;118(3):400-5. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.10.022.
Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0383-4.
González de Villaumbrosia P, Martínez-Rus F, García-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116(4):543-50.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.01.025.
Vecsei B, Joós-Kovács G, Borbély J, Hermann P. Comparison of the accuracy of direct and indirect three-dimensional digitizing processes for CAD/CAM systems - An in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(2):177-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2016.07.001.
Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(6):648-53. doi: 10.1111/clr.12853.
Pan Y, Tam JMY, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, Pow EHN. 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.
Pan Y, Tam JM, Tsoi JK, Lam WY, Huang R, Chen Z, et al. Evaluation of laboratory scanner accuracy by a novel calibration block for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. J Dent. 2020;102:103476. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103476.
Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29(4):853-62. doi: 10.11607/jomi.3343.
Runkel C, Güth JF, Erdelt K, Keul C. Digital impressions in dentistry-accuracy of impression digitalisation by desktop scanners. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(3):1249-57. doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02995-w.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2022 Grazielle Franco Gomes, Mónica Estefanía Tinajero Aroni, Lucas Portela Oliveira, João Neudenir Arioli Filho, Carolina Mollo Binda, Francisco de Assis Mollo Júnior
Downloads
