Additively manufactured devices with varying designs and sizes for acquiring initial intraoral implant scans.

Dental literature has reported greater intraoral scanning accuracy when implant scan bodies (ISBs) are connected compared with non-connected methods. Initial intraoral digital implant scans are required for the fabrication of a custom framework to connect implant scan bodies (IOSFix; IOSFix Dental). This calibrated metal framework is used to acquire definitive intraoral implant scans. However, the acquisition of initial intraoral implant scans can be challenging when ISBs are not connected. This article describes a step-by-step technique for connecting ISBs by using additively manufactured devices to acquire initial intraoral implant scans. This technique aims to facilitate the recording of initial intraoral implant scans, provide different device designs and sizes to connect ISBs, and reduce chairside time.

Scanning accuracy and scanning area discrepancies of intraoral digital scans acquired at varying scanning distances and angulations among 4 different intraoral scanners.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) can be affected by operator handling; however, the scanning area and accuracy discrepancies acquired at different scanning distances and angulations among IOSs remain uncertain. PURPOSE: The objective of this in vitro study was to compare the scanning area and scanning accuracy of the intraoral digital scans obtained at 3 scanning distances with 4 different scanning angulations among 4 different IOSs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A reference device (reference file) was designed with 4 inclinations (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees) and printed. Four groups were created based on the IOS: i700, TRIOS4, CS 3800, and iTero scanners. Four subgroups were generated depending on the scanning angulation (0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees). Each subgroup was divided into 3 subgroups based on the scanning distance: 0, 2, and 4 mm (N=720, n=15). The reference devices were positioned in a z-axis calibrated platform for standardizing the scanning distance. In the i700-0-0 subgroup, the 0-degree reference device was positioned in the calibrated platform. The wand of the IOS was positioned in a supporting framework with a 0-mm scanning distance, and the scans were acquired. In the i700-0-2 subgroup, the platform was lowered for a 2-mm scanning distance followed by the specimen acquisition. In the i700-0-4 subgroup, the platform was further lowered for a 4-mm scanning distance, and the scans were obtained. For the i700-15, i700-30, and i700-45 subgroups, the same procedures were carried out as in the i700-0 subgroups respectively, but with the 10-, 15-, 30-, or 45-degree reference device. Similarly, the same procedures were completed for all the groups with the corresponding IOS. The area of each scan was measured. The reference file was used to measure the discrepancy with the experimental scans by using the root mean square (RMS) error. Three-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the scanning area data. Kruskal-Wallis and multiple pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the RMS data (α=.05). RESULTS: IOS (P<.001), scanning distance (P<.001), and scanning angle (P<.001) were significant factors of the scanning area measured among the subgroups tested. A significant group×subgroup interaction was found (P<.001). The iTero and the TRIOS4 groups obtained higher scanning area mean values than the i700 and CS 3800 groups. The CS 3800 obtained the lowest scanning area among the IOS groups tested. The 0-mm subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 2- and 4-mm subgroups (P<.001). The 0- and 30-degree subgroups obtained a significantly lower scanning area than the 15- and 45-degree subgroups (P<.001). The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant median RMS discrepancies (P<.001). All the IOS groups were significantly different from each other (P<.001), except for the CS 3800 and TRIOS4 groups (P>.999). All the scanning distance groups were different from each other (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Scanning area and scanning accuracy were influenced by the IOS, scanning distance, and scanning angle selected to acquire the digital scans.