Effect of different intraoral scanners and scanbody splinting on accuracy of scanning implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the accuracy of different intraoral scanners (IOS) for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations with and without scanbodies splinting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two maxillary models were designed and fabricated to receive an all-on-four implant retained. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30 and Group 2; 45). Each group was then divided into three subgroups according to the type of IOS used: Subgroup C; Primescan, subgroup T; Trios4, and subgroup M; Medit i600. Then each subgroup was divided into two divisions according to scanning technique; division S: splinted and division N: nonsplinted. Ten scans were made by each scanner for every division. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic controlX analysis software. RESULTS: Angulation had no significant effect on both the trueness (p = 0.854) and precision (p = 0.347). Splinting had a significant effect on trueness and precision (p < 0.001). Scanner type had a significant effect on trueness (p < 0.001) and precision (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between trueness of Trios 4 (112.15 ± 12.85) and Primescan (106.75 ± 22.58). However, there was a significant difference when compared to trueness of Medit i600 (158.50 ± 27.65). For the precision results Cerec Primescan showed the highest precision (95.45 ± 33.21). There was a significant difference between the three scanners, precision of Trios4 (109.72 ± 19.24) and Medit i600 (121.21 ± 17.26). CONCLUSION: Cerec Primescan has higher trueness and precision than Trios 4 and Medit i600 in full arch implants scanning. Splinting the scanbodies improve the accuracy of full arch implants scanning. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Cerec Primescan and 3Shape Trios 4 can be used for scanning of All-on-four implant supported prosthesis when scanbodies are splinted using a modular chain device.

Accuracy of different laboratory scanners for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the accuracy of different laboratory scanners (LS) for scanning of implant-supported full arch fixed prosthesis with different implant angulations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two maxillary models that are designed to receive an all-on-four implant retained prosthesis were fabricated then scanned using five different LS. The models were divided into two groups according to the angulation of the posterior implant (Group 1; 30° and group 2; 45°). Each group was then subdivided into five subgroups according to the type of LS, subgroup T; Medit T710, subgroup I; IneosX5, subgroup E; 3ShapeE4, subgroup A; Autoscan DS-Mix, and subgroup M; Ceramill Map600. An industrial 3D scanner was used as reference scanner, then each model was scanned with 5 LS 10 times. Trueness and precision were analyzed using Geomagic 3D analysis software. RESULTS: Both scanner type and implant angle had a significant effect on the trueness (p < 0.001). Significant interaction was found between the scanner type and implant angle (p < 0.001). For scanner type tukeys post hoc test revealed highest trueness with the 3Shape E4 (21.3 ± 2.1) and the medit T710 (22.6 ± 2.1) and least trueness with the shining 3D autoscan ds-mix (33.8 ± 3.0). Significantly better trueness was observed with the 30° than the 45° angle. Regarding precision, two-way ANOVA revealed significant effect of the scanner type only (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the 3Shape E4, medit T710, Ineos X5, and the Ceramill map600. However, all showed significantly higher precision values when compared to shining 3D autoscan ds-mix. CONCLUSIONS: All tested scanners showed results within the clinically acceptable range with 3ShapeE4 and Medit T710 showing the highest accuracy. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Tested scanners can be used for scanning of All-on-four implant supported prosthesis.

Influence of Preparation Type and Tooth Geometry on the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of preparation design and tooth geometry on the accuracy of scans obtained from three different intraoral scanners (IOS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full coverage crown and inlay preparations with known axial wall tapers (6ᵒ and 12ᵒ) were performed on typodont teeth using a computer numerical control machine. Reference models were scanned with a highly accurate reference scanner (Ineos X5) and saved in standard tessellation language (STL) format then each IOS (Omnicam, Trios, and i500) scanned each model 10 times. The STL files obtained from the intraoral scanners were compared to the reference models (trueness) and within each test group (precision). Data were statistically analyzed using three- way ANOVA and one- way ANOVA. RESULTS: When comparing trueness values extracoronal preparations (32.30 ± 11.23 µm) was significantly better than intra-coronal preparation (59.61 ± 16.42 µm). As for opposing wall taper, one-way ANOVA revealed that the more the convergence or divergence between opposing walls the better is the trueness. Significant differences were observed between the scanners. 3 Shape Trios (35.70 ± 14.12 µm) and medit i500 (44.31 ± 11.41 µm) showed no statistically significant differences. However, both showed significantly better precision results when compared to Omnicam (57.83 ± 22.14 µm). CONCLUSION: Extracoronal preparations show better trueness and precision in comparison to intracoronal preparations. Trios and i500 have better trueness and precision than Omnicam. Increasing the taper of the axial wall has a direct effect on trueness of scans obtained from the IOS.