PURPOSE. Several studies focused on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners in implant dentistry, but the data of inter-implant distances were not widely mentioned. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of distance between two implants on the surface distortion of scanned models generated b...
PURPOSE. Several studies focused on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners in implant dentistry, but the data of inter-implant distances were not widely mentioned. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of distance between two implants on the surface distortion of scanned models generated by intra-oral scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three models with the distances between two fixed scan bodies of 7, 14, and 21 mm were fabricated and scanned with a highly precise D900L dental laboratory scanner as reference models. Fifteen scans were performed with TRIOS3 and CEREC Omnicam intra-oral scanners. Trueness, precision, and angle deviation of the test models were analyzed (α=.05). RESULTS. There was a significant difference among inter-implant distances in both intraoral scanners (P<.001). The error of trueness and precision increased with the increasing inter-implant length, while the angle deviation did not show the same trend. A significant difference in the angle deviation was found among the inter-implant distance. The greatest angle deviation was reported in the 14-mm group of both scanners (P<.05). In contrast, the lowest angle deviation in the 21-mm group of the TR scanner and the 7-mm of the CR scanner was reported (P<.001). CONCLUSION. The inter-implant distance affected the accuracy of intra-oral scanner. The error of trueness and precision increased along with the increasing distance between two implants. However, the distortions were not clinically significant. Regarding angle deviation, the clinically significant angle deviation may be possible when using intra-oral scanners in the partially edentulous arch.
PURPOSE. Several studies focused on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners in implant dentistry, but the data of inter-implant distances were not widely mentioned. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of distance between two implants on the surface distortion of scanned models generated by intra-oral scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three models with the distances between two fixed scan bodies of 7, 14, and 21 mm were fabricated and scanned with a highly precise D900L dental laboratory scanner as reference models. Fifteen scans were performed with TRIOS3 and CEREC Omnicam intra-oral scanners. Trueness, precision, and angle deviation of the test models were analyzed (α=.05). RESULTS. There was a significant difference among inter-implant distances in both intraoral scanners (P<.001). The error of trueness and precision increased with the increasing inter-implant length, while the angle deviation did not show the same trend. A significant difference in the angle deviation was found among the inter-implant distance. The greatest angle deviation was reported in the 14-mm group of both scanners (P<.05). In contrast, the lowest angle deviation in the 21-mm group of the TR scanner and the 7-mm of the CR scanner was reported (P<.001). CONCLUSION. The inter-implant distance affected the accuracy of intra-oral scanner. The error of trueness and precision increased along with the increasing distance between two implants. However, the distortions were not clinically significant. Regarding angle deviation, the clinically significant angle deviation may be possible when using intra-oral scanners in the partially edentulous arch.
* AI 자동 식별 결과로 적합하지 않은 문장이 있을 수 있으니, 이용에 유의하시기 바랍니다.
문제 정의
However, in the previous studies, there was no emphasis on the effect of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanners. Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of inter-implant distances on the accuracy of intraoral scanners.
제안 방법
Therefore, this study was designed to investigate the relationship between the length of the edentulous span and the error of intra-oral scanners after forming three-dimensional models. Although the group of 21-mm inter-implant distance was rarely seen in clinical situation, the authors aimed to investigate the impact of the length of edentulous span between two implants.
Correct model alignment indicates the test objects’ translation error compared to the reference objects, which impacts the result estimation of the software. Because best-fit alignment or local best fit alignment produced minimal errors from align-38ing models, this study started from “prealignment” to approximate the closest alignment. Then, “local best-fit alignment” was followed to ensure the fitness of aligning objects.
The jaw curve in the anterior region may be one of4, 17-22the factors that affect the scanning error. In this study, the authors proposed to measure the error generated from the straight-line span. Thus, the implant analogs and scan bodies were positioned at the maxilla’s posterior region, where the arch is relatively straight.
The second alignment was consequently processed with “local best-fit alignment” to align the flat surfaces on the scan abutments. The parallelism of two implants was confirmed by GOM Inspect software prior to the trueness, precision and angular error analysis.
Moreover, it was reported that the accuracy of dental desktop scanners was unaffected when33they were used to scan two scan bodies. Therefore, a D900L dental laboratory scanner was used to generate reference three-dimensional scanned models in this study.
However, few studies reported the length of inter-im-4, 26, 28plant distance in number. Therefore, this study was designed to investigate the relationship between the length of the edentulous span and the error of intra-oral scanners after forming three-dimensional models. Although the group of 21-mm inter-implant distance was rarely seen in clinical situation, the authors aimed to investigate the impact of the length of edentulous span between two implants.
The sharp-edge shape geometry was also mentioned in some studies that it35-37could affect the accuracy of the scanned models. Therefore, to control this influencing factor, the posterior region and the scan body’s design was selected to evaluate the effect of inter-implant distance.
대상 데이터
">scanners. According to the experiment, the reference data were prepared by the D900L dental laboratory scanner, the highly precise dental laboratory optical scanner. Although several studies employed engineer-ing-grade optical scanners related to digital scanning8, 15, 18, 19, 21, 27, 28devices, the dental laboratory scanners were also considered as acceptable reference scan-6, 8, 29-32ners.
The scanned models were imported to STL file format as reference models for model 1, 2, and 3. Afterward, two intraoral scanners, 3Shape® TRIOS3™ (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and Dentsply Sirona® CEREC™ Omnicam (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) were used to scan the three models as test models. Fifteen scans of each model were performed for one scanner following the company’s protocol.
2. Models used in the study, (A) Model 1, two scan abutments are placed at tooth 13, and 14, 7 mm apart (B) Model 2, two scan abutments are placed at tooth 13 and 15, 14 mm apart (C) Model 3, two scan abutments are placed at tooth 13 and 16, 21 mm apart.
데이터처리
Armonk, NY, USA). Statistical estimation of data distribution and comparison were performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test.
성능/효과
According to different technological principle of two scanners included in the study, the accuracy of the TR scanner was better, approximately twice the CR scanner. The TR scanner is the confocal microscopy.
Although most of this experiment’s error of trueness and precision were within biomechanical acceptability, the angle deviation seemed unpredictable. In this study, 2 of 6 angles from each scanner and inter-implant distance were greater than 0.
For trueness, considering at least 22 μm was called4, 5misfit, the error of trueness in this study were within the acceptable range for the passive fit, except for the 21-mm group in which the maximum trueness error was over 22 μm. Additionally, the trueness error in this study were not as high as the trueness of21, 23, 26-28, 40other studies.
However, the accuracy of scanned data is also one factor that indicates proper occlusal and proximal contacts, and path of insertion for implant restoration for the delivery of two single-unit restorations. This study suggested that when inter-implant distances were only considered, the error of trueness and precision was within clinical acceptability. On the contrary, angle deviation that could affect prosthesis may be found when using in-tra-oral scanners.
05). To compare between two in-tra-oral scanners, there was no significant difference between the two scanners except for the 14-mm in-ter-implant distance group, in which the value of the trueness error of the TR group was less than that of the CR group (P = .003).
Within this study’s limitation, it can be concluded that the intra-oral scanner tends to produce more error and less reproducibility at the larger inter-implant distance. The scanner also possibly produces significant angle error at any span length between two implants in the partially edentulous arch.
참고문헌 (43)
1 Shenoy VK Single tooth implants: Pretreatment considerations and pretreatment evaluation J Interdiscip Dent 2012 2 149 157
2 Misch CE Dental implant prosthetics 2nd ed St. Louis Elsevier 2015
3 Kim Y Oh TJ Misch CE Wang HL Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale Clin Oral Implants Res 2005 16 26 35 15642028
4 Andriessen FS Rijkens DR van der Meer WJ Wismeijer DW Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study J Prosthet Dent 2014 111 186 194 24210732
5 Buzayan MM Yunus NB Passive fit in screw retained multi-unit implant prosthesis understanding and achieving: a review of the literature J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2014 14 16 23 24604993
6 Basaki K Alkumru H De Souza G Finer Y Accuracy of digital vs conventional implant impression approach: a three-dimensional comparative in vitro analysis Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2017 32 792 28618432
8 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 27 465 472 25682892
9 Lee SJ Gallucci GO Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes Clin Oral Implants Res 2013 24 111 115 22353208
10 Gallardo YR Bohner L Tortamano P Pigozzo MN Laganá DC Sesma N Patient outcomes and procedure working time for digital versus conventional impressions: a systematic review J Prosthet Dent 2018 119 214 219 28967407
11 Alikhasi M Siadat H Nasirpour A Hasanzade M Three-dimensional accuracy of digital impression versus conventional method: effect of implant angulation and connection type Int Dent J 2018 3761750
12 Ajioka H Kihara H Odaira C Kobayashi T Kondo H Examination of the position accuracy of implant abutments reproduced by intra-oral optical impression PLoS One 2016 11 e0164048 27706225
13 Yuzbasioglu E Kurt H Turunc R Bilir H Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients' perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes BMC Oral Health 2014 14 10 24479892
14 Seelbach P Brueckel C Wöstmann B Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow Clin Oral Investig 2013 17 1759 1764
15 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 1360 1367 28039903
16 Cappare P Sannino G Minoli M Montemezzi P Ferrini F Conventional versus digital impressions for full arch screw-retained maxillary rehabilitations: a randomized clinical trial Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019 16 829
17 Abduo J Elseyoufi M Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018 26 101 121 29989757
18 Jivanescu A Rotar P Hategan S Pricop C Rus R Goguta L Clinical factors influence the trueness of intra-oral scanning Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2019 27 51 55 31046207
19 Keeling A Wu J Ferrari M Confounding factors affecting the marginal quality of an intra-oral scan J Dent 2017 59 33 40 28189718
20 Arakida T Kanazawa M Iwaki M Suzuki T Minakuchi S Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner J Prosthodont Res 2018 62 324 329 29397353
21 Mangano FG Hauschild U Veronesi G Imburgia M Mangano C Admakin O Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study BMC Oral Health 2019 19 101 31170969
22 Braian M Wennerberg A Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners for scanning edentulous and dentate complete-arch mandibular casts: a comparative in vitro study J Prosthet Dent 2019 122 129 136.e2 30885584
23 Ender A Mehl A Full arch scans: conventional versus digital impressions-an in-vitro study Int J Comput Dent 2011 14 11 21 21657122
24 Ender A Mehl A In-vitro evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impressions Quintessence Int 2015 46 9 17 25019118
25 Flügge T van der Meer WJ Gonzalez BG Vach K Wismeijer D Wang P The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Oral Implants Res 2018 29 374 392 30328182
26 Fukazawa S Odaira C Kondo H Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners J Prosthodont Res 2017 61 450 459 28216020
27 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 92 28577366
28 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 28 648 653 27150731
29 Eliasson A Ortorp A The accuracy of an implant impression technique using digitally coded healing abutments Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2012 14 e30 e38 21453396
30 Howell KJ McGlumphy EA Drago C Knapik G Comparison of the accuracy of Biomet 3i Encode Robocast Technology and conventional implant impression techniques Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2013 28 228 240 23377070
31 Huang R Liu Y Huang B Zhang C Chen Z Li Z Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation Clin Oral Implants Res 2020 31 625 633 32181919
32 Michelinakis G Apostolakis D Tsagarakis A Kourakis G Pavlakis E A comparison of accuracy of 3 intraoral scanners: a single-blinded in vitro study J Prosthet 2020 124 581 588
33 Tahmaseb A Wu V Wismeijer D Coucke W Evans C The accuracy of static computer-aided implant surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis Clin Oral Implants Res 2018 29 416 435 30328191
34 Motel C Kirchner E Adler W Wichmann M Matta RE Impact of different scan bodies and scan strategies on the accuracy of digital implant impressions assessed with an intraoral scanner: an in vitro study J Prosthodont 2020 29 309 314 31802574
35 Waldecker M Rues S Rammelsberg P Bömicke W Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: a comparative in vitro study J Prosthet Dent 2020 S0022-3913(20)30298-5
36 Ashraf Y Sabet A Hamdy A Ebeid K Influence of preparation type and tooth geometry on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners J Prosthodont 2020 29 800 804 32406156
37 Park JM Kim RJ Lee KW Comparative reproducibility analysis of 6 intraoral scanners used on complex intracoronal preparations J Prosthet Dent 2020 123 113 120 31027953
38 O'Toole S Osnes C Bartlett D Keeling A Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment Dent Mater 2019 35 495 500 30683418
39 Ender A Mehl A Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision J Prosthet Dent 2013 109 121 128 23395338
40 Renne W Ludlow M Fryml J Schurch Z Mennito A Kessler R Lauer A Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3-dimensional comparisons J Prosthet Dent 2017 118 36 42 28024822
41 Richert R Goujat A Venet L Viguie G Viennot S Robinson P Farges JC Fages M Ducret M Intraoral scanner technologies: A review to make a successful impression J Healthc Eng 2017 2017 8427595 29065652
42 Amornvit P Rokaya D Peampring C Sanohkan S Confocal 3D optical intraoral scanners and comparison of image capturing accuracy Comput Mater Contin 2021 66 303 314
43 van der Meer WJ Andriessen FS Wismeijer D Ren Y Application of intra-oral dental scanners in the digital workflow of implantology PLoS One 2012 7 e43312 22937030
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.