Effect of 3D printer, implant analog system, and implant angulation on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the accumulative effect of 3D printer, implant analog systems, and implant angulation on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts. METHODS: A reference cast, presenting a case of a three-unit implant-supported prosthesis, was scanned with a coordinate measurement machine, producing the first reference data set (CMM, n = 1). The second reference data set (n = 10) was prepared using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (Trios4). Test quadrant casts were produced using three DLP type 3D printers, Max (MAX UV385), Pro (PRO 4K65 UV), and Nex (NextDent 5100), and three implant analog systems, El (Elos), Nt (Nt-trading), and St (Straumann) (n = 90). Stone casts were also produced via analog impressions (Stone, n = 10). After digitization, the accuracy of 3D distance, local angulation (angle between implants) and global angulation (angle between the implant center axis and an axis perpendicular to the global plane) was evaluated by comparing the reference (CMM, IOS), test (3D print), and control (Stone) groups using metrology software. Data were statistically analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey`s tests (α=0.05). RESULTS: IOS was truer in 3D implant distance and more precise in capturing local angulation than Stone (p ≤ 0.05). Other measurements were similar between both groups (p > 0.05). The amount of error introduced in the workflow by IOS and 3D printing was mostly similar (p > 0.05). 3D printed casts had similar or even higher accuracy than Stone group (p > 0.05). In most cases, higher trueness was achieved when using PRO 4K65 UV 3D printer and Elos implant analog system (p ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSION: 3D printer, implant analog system, and implant angulation have a significant effect on the accuracy of analog position in implant casts. Limited-span implant-supported cases could be reproduced digitally with similar accuracy as conventional methods. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: A fully digital workflow with a carefully selected 3D printer and implant analog system can increase the accuracy of digitally produced implant casts with comparable accuracy to conventional workflow.

Effect of Different Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Bite Registration in Edentulous Maxillary and Mandibular Arches.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to use in vitro models to examine the bite registration accuracy of four different intraoral scanners (IOS) for edentulous maxillary and mandibular arches. The objective was to assess the trueness and precision of the IOS and determine if there were significant differences between them. METHODS: An Asiga Max UV 3D printer was used to print maxillary and mandibular edentulous models based on the shape of Frasaco models (artificial dental arch models). Four dental implants were placed symmetrically in both models using Straumann BLT RC implants. Digital impressions were taken with Primescan, Trios 3, Trios 4, and Medit i500 intraoral scanners (n = 10 for each IOS). Digital bite registrations were made, and scanning data was exported in STL format. The accuracy of the interarch distance (the distance between the metrological spheres attached to the mandibular and maxillary models) was estimated for each IOS. RESULTS: The results showed significant differences in trueness and precision between different IOS (p <.05), except Medit i500 and Trios 3 (p >.05). Primescan provided the most accurate results, followed by Medit i500, Trios 3, and Trios 4, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: within the limitations of this study, the IOS type affects the accuracy of interocclusal bite registration in in vitro design. Only Primescan achieved clinically acceptable accuracy for the interocclusal recording of edentulous arches. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The comparison of the accuracy of bite registration between different intraoral scanners will help increase the efficiency of the clinical application of digitalized interarch registration.

Effect of additional reference objects on accuracy of five intraoral scanners in partially and completely edentulous jaws: An in vitro study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The effect of additional reference objects on the accuracy of different intraoral scanners for partially and completely edentulous patients has not been investigated sufficiently. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of an additional reference object in the form of additional artificial landmarks on the trueness and precision of different intraoral scanners in partially and completely edentulous areas. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Partially and completely edentulous models with 2 and 4 implants (BLT, RC, Institut Straumann AG), respectively, were used in the study. For the digital scan, scan bodies (CARES Mono Scanbody) were attached, and reference data obtained by using industrial scanners. Ten digital scans of the same model were made with each intraoral scanner: PRIMESCAN, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4, Carestream 3600, and Medit. Then, additional artificial landmarks were attached, and 10 more intraoral scans were made with each device. Computer-aided design files of the scan bodies were aligned to obtain 3-dimensional surfaces with reference and test scanners. Trueness and precision of distance, angulations, and vertical shift between scan bodies were estimated. The Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon or Student 2-sample t test was applied to estimate statistically significant differences between groups (α=.05). RESULTS: In the partially edentulous model, distance trueness mean ±standard deviation values ranged from -46.7 ±15.4 µm (TRIOS 3) to 392.1 ±314.3 µm (Medit) in models without additional artificial landmarks. When additional artificial landmarks were applied, trueness of distance mean ±standard deviation values ranged between -35 ±13 µm (TRIOS 4) and 117.7 ±232.3 µm (CARESTREAM). Trueness mean ±standard deviation values of angulation varied from -0.0 ±0.5 degrees (CARESTREAM) to 0.2 ±0.0 degrees (PRIMESCAN) without additional artificial landmarks and from 0.0 ±0.2 degrees (TRIOS 3) to 0.4 ±0.5 degrees (CARESTREAM) with additional artificial landmarks. Vertical shift trueness measurements varied from -108 ±47.1 µm (TRIOS 4) to 107.2 ±103.5 µm (Medit) without additional artificial landmarks and from -15.0 ±45.0 µm (CARESTREAM) to -86.9 ±42.1 µm (TRIOS 4) with additional artificial landmarks. The additional artificial landmark technique improved the trueness of all measured parameters for the 5 tested intraoral scanners. No statistically significant differences were found among models with or without additional artificial landmarks, except for Medit in all parameters and PRIMESCAN in angle measurements (P<.05). The best precision for distance was found with TRIOS 3 and with PRIMESCAN for angulation and vertical shift. Larger deviations were observed in the completely edentulous situation. The effect of additional artificial landmarks was limited when the accuracy parameters of digital scans were considered. CONCLUSIONS: Scans with and without additional artificial landmarks of partially edentulous conditions scanned by any of the intraoral scanners tested did not influence precision and trueness, except for Medit i500 in the distance and vertical shift parameters and CARESTREAM3600 in vertical shift. Precision and trueness of digital scans of completely edentulous areas were affected, except for Medit i500 for distance, PRIMESCAN and TRIOS 4 for angle, and all systems except TRIOS 4 for vertical shift precision.

Model-free digital workflow and immediate functional loading of implant-supported monolithic glass-ceramic crowns: A case series.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate surgical and prosthetic outcomes of immediate functional loading of implants with glass-ceramic screw-retained single crowns. METHODS: A total of 22 implants were placed. Within 24 h, functional full-contour glass ceramic crowns were delivered to patients. The amount of attached gingiva, Simplified Oral Hygiene Index Score, bleeding on probing, time after extraction, bone type, implant size, soft tissue thickness, primary stability, a general fit of the restoration, occlusal and proximal contacts were recorded. Restorations were followed-up at 1, 3, and 6 months tracking marginal bone loss (MBL), noting changes in occlusal and interproximal contacts, checking other possible complications. RESULTS: One implant failed and was removed after 4 weeks (95.5% survival rate). The rest of the implants and crowns functioned with no complications during the follow-up period of 6 months. Factors such as time after extraction, bone type, implant size, soft tissue thickness, and primary stability recorded in Ncm and implant stability quotient (ISQ) values, were not associated with MBL (p<0.05). Mean MBL was found to be 0.3 mm (standard deviation = 0.42) mesially and 0.4 mm (standard deviation = 0.66) distally. One distal and one mesial proximal contact were found to be missing at the 6-month check-up appointment. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, fully digital workflow without a 3D printed model could be successfully employed for immediate functional loading with single-unit implant-supported crowns. Further studies are needed to obtain long-term results with a larger sample of patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Model-free digital workflow and immediate functional loading of implant-supported monolithic glass-ceramic crown might be viable option to restore a single tooth defect.

Accuracy of Fixed Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses Additively Manufactured by Metal, Ceramic, or Polymer: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Additive manufacturing (AM) in prosthodontics is used as an alternative to casting or milling. Various techniques and materials are available for the additive manufacturing of the fixed and removable tooth-supported restorations, but there is a lack of evidence on the accuracy of AM fixed implant-supported prostheses. Recent studies investigated the accuracy of ceramic AM prostheses. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of additively manufactured metal, ceramic or polymers, and screw- or cement-retained fixed implant-supported prostheses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two calibrated investigators performed an electronic search of relevant publications in the English language following selected PICOS criteria and using a well-defined search strategy (latest search date-1st of June, 2021). Based on the exclusion criteria (no control group, less than five samples per group, 3D printing of the implant abutment part, only subjective evaluation of accuracy, etc.) studies were not included in the review. Quantitative data of accuracy evaluation such as marginal gap, strain analysis, and linear measurements was extracted and interpreted. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the risk of methodological bias of all included studies. RESULTS: Sixteen in vitro studies were selected for the final analysis. Six of the selected studies evaluated screw-retained restorations and 10 cement-retained implant-supported restorations. Only 4 publications concluded that AM restorations were more accurate than conventionally made (cast or milled) ones. The most common finding was that AM restorations were more accurate than cast and demonstrated less or similar accuracy compared to milled ones (n = 10 studies). Detected marginal discrepancies mean values of the AM prosthesis varied from 23 to more than 200 µm, but most of them were categorized as clinically acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: AM implant-supported fixed prostheses demonstrate similar accuracy compared to conventional and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing techniques in vitro. Detected inaccuracies of AM restorations do not exceed clinically acceptable limits. Clinical studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to show the reliability of AM prostheses.

In vitro and in vivo accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions.

OBJECTIVES: The main objective of the study was to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions for fixed dental prosthesis under in vitro and in vivo conditions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eight patients (five women and three men) with at least one edentulous arch and with 4-6 osseointegrated implants participated in this study. For each edentulous arch (n = 10), experimental screw-retained titanium bar with attached four scan bodies was fabricated. The bar containing four scan bodies was screw-retained intraorally on implants and scanned with Trios 3 intraoral scanner eight times (IOS group, in vivo). Then, the bar was attached to the master cast and scanned eight times again with the same intraoral scanner (MIOS group, in vitro). Finally, the bar with scan bodies was scanned 8 times with a laboratory scanner (reference). Precision and trueness were calculated for 3 distances and 3 angles between the scan bodies (1-2, 1-3, and 1-4) in IOS and MIOS groups. RESULTS: Precision and trueness for the largest distance (1-4) were found to be 44 ± 18 µm and 32 ± 19 µm for the IOS group and 31 ± 16 µm and 30 ± 14 µm for MIOS group, respectively. Precision and trueness for the angle between the most distant scan bodies (1-4) were 0.22 ± 0.14° and 0.18 ± 0.10° for the IOS group and 0.16 ± 0.11° and 0.07 ± 0.05° for MIOS group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoral conditions moderately affected the precision and trueness of Trios 3 (3Shape) intraoral scanner. Results of in vitro accuracy studies cannot be directly transferred to the clinical field.

Comparison of conventional and digital workflows for implant-supported screw-retained zirconia FPD bars: Fit and cement gap evaluation using SEM analysis.

PURPOSE: To assess the fit and cement gap of fixed partial dentures supported by two implants made using conventional and digital workflows. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients requiring fixed partial dentures supported by two implants were included in the study. Forty-eight zirconia fixed partial denture bars supported by two implants (AnyOne, MegaGen, Daegu, South Korea) were produced using a conventional (n = 24, group C) and digital (n = 24, group D) workflow. All implants had the same internal connection prosthetic platform. Silicone open tray impressions with splinted copings (group C) and digital impressions using a Trios 3 intraoral scanner (3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) (group D) were taken for each patient. The fit and cement gap were assessed by scanning electron microscopy on the verified master cast. The distance between reference points on the titanium base and implant analogue was measured with and without tightening the prosthetic screw. The difference in distance was calculated and represented the misfit (Dmisfit). The cement gap (Dcement) was measured as the shortest vertical distance from the inferior edge of the bar to the top edge of the titanium base. RESULTS: The median Dmisfit values (interquartile range) differed significantly (P < 0.05) between the groups, with 59 (60) µm for group C and 78 (88) µm for group D. Fixed partial dentures fabricated using a digital workflow presented lower Dcement values (35 [26] µm) than the conventional group (38.9 [23] µm) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both workflows produced different levels of fit and differently sized cement gaps when measured on the master casts using scanning electron microscopy. A cast-free digital workflow was associated with a smaller cement gap, but larger misfit was detected when measuring on the verified master cast.

Clinical and laboratory passive fit assessment of implant-supported zirconia restorations fabricated using conventional and digital workflow.

BACKGROUND: Long-term success of implant-supported restorations can be affected by the accuracy of the prosthodontic workflow which may differ between conventional and digital techniques. PURPOSE: The purpose was to compare the fit of two-implant-supported restorations, fabricated using conventional and digital workflows and to assess the influence of distance and angulation between the implants on the passive fit of the prosthesis. The SR test was selected to evaluate the fit of two-implant-supported zirconia restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-eight zirconia two-implant-supported restorations were fabricated according to conventional (group C, n = 24) and digital (group D, n = 24) workflows. The SR parameter was calculated as a difference of rotation angles of each screw in passive and nonpassive situations. SR values between groups C and D were compared by performing measurements intraorally, on master and control casts. RESULTS: SR intraorally in group C (16.25 ± 15.52°) was higher than it was in group D (13.85 ± 10.78°), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .557). While measuring SR on the master cast, group C SR (6.04 ± 7.43°) had lower values than group D (13.12 ± 13.86°) (P = .0039). No statistically significant correlations were found between SR measurements and inter-implant distance or angulation. Restorations with inter-implant angle higher than 10° differed significantly from those with less than 10° angulation. CONCLUSIONS: Digital restorations had a better fit on the control cast, which was used as a reference in this study. Angulation of more than 10° between the implants could negatively affect the passive fit of the digitally fabricated restorations intraorally.

Accuracy of digital and conventional dental implant impressions for fixed partial dentures: A comparative clinical study.

PURPOSE: The newest technologies for digital implant impression (DII) taking are developing rapidly and showing acceptable clinical results. However, scientific literature is lacking data from clinical studies about the accuracy of DII. The aim of this study was to compare digital and conventional dental implant impressions (CII) in a clinical environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four fixed zirconia restorations supported by 2 implants were fabricated using conventional open-tray impression technique with splinted transfers (CII group) and scan with Trios 3 IOS (3Shape) (DII group). After multiple verification procedures, master models were scanned using laboratory scanner D800 (3Shape). 3D models from conventional and digital workflow were imported to reverse engineering software and superimposed with high resolution 3D CAD models of scan bodies. Distance between center points, angulation, rotation, vertical shift, and surface mismatch of the scan bodies were measured and compared between conventional and digital impressions. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were found for: a) inter-implant distance, b) rotation, c) vertical shift, and d) surface mismatch differences, comparing DII and CII groups for mesial and dist al implant scan bodies (P≤.05). CONCLUSION: Recorded linear differences between digital and conventional impressions were of limited clinical significance with two implant-supported restorations.