In vivo trueness and precision of full-arch implant scans using intraoral scanners with three different acquisition protocols.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate an in situ reference acquisition method for implant positions in complete edentulous maxillae using an industrial scanner and allowing for in vivo trueness analysis of the restorative workflow. To assess in vivo trueness and precision of intraoral scanners (IOS) using different acquisition protocols. Furthermore, to compare IOS trueness with impression-based models and implant-supported fixed dentures (IFD) in a parallel study on the same cohort using the same in situ reference scan. METHODS: Six scan-bodies mounted to maxillary implants in five subjects were reference scanned (REF) using an industrial scanner. Subjects were scanned with IOS three times using three different protocols: control (CT), dental floss assisted (DF), and acrylic splint (SP). CAD-files of scan-bodies with inter-aligned analogues were geometry-aligned to REF, and SP. Scan-bodies were aligned to CT and DF in proprietary dental laboratory software and exported with analogue positions. Resulting six CAD-analogues per scan were Globally Aligned using a consistent geometry-based alignment. Deviations were computed after a Reference Point System Alignment at the implant/prosthetic platform for Cartesian axes with a linear Resultant. RESULTS: Resultant trueness was CT: 41±11 µm, DF: 49±22 µm, SP: 55±8 µm. Resultant precision was CT: 48±7 µm, DF: 50±7 µm, SP: 45±6 µm. CONCLUSIONS: This method is applicable for assessing trueness of maxillary full-arch implant scans in vivo. The CT protocol was most accurate. CT trueness showed no difference to digitised impression-based models in parallel study. CT was more accurate than IFD in a parallel study. CT displayed similar numerical trueness as existing in vitro studies. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Using IOS to acquire full-arch implant scans is controversial. The modified protocol in this pilot shows promising results in the maxilla where great care was taken to manage non-attached tissues when a modified scanning pattern was used. However, other IOS may show varying results in vivo. A completed scan does not necessarily equate to an accurate scan.

In vivo trueness of full-arch implant-supported CAD/CAM restorations and models based on conventional impressions.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a method for in situ reference acquisition of implant positions in complete edentulous maxillae using an industrial scanner. To assess in vivo trueness of full-arch implant-supported fixed dentures (IFD) and dental models based on conventional impressions. METHODS: In five subjects, scan-bodies were mounted to six maxillary implants and scanned three times using an industrial scanner (REF). Original impression-based models used to manufacture existing IFDs, (MOD1), and models fabricated from new polyether impressions, (MOD2), were scanned three times with a laboratory scanner. Scan-bodies were aligned and exported with analogue positions corresponding to implant positions. Implant analogues were mounted onto existing IFDs and scanned three times (BRIDGE). CAD files of scan-bodies with inter-aligned CAD-analogues were geometry-aligned to REF. CAD-analogues were aligned to exported files of MOD1 and MOD2, and to BRIDGE. Resulting six CAD-analogues were Globally Aligned using a consistent geometry-based alignment. Deviations were computed after a Reference Point System Alignment at the implant/prosthetic platform for Cartesian axes and a linear Resultant. RESULTS: REF precision was 9.3 ± 1 µm. In vivo trueness for Resultant was MOD1: 36±16 µm, MOD2: 28±7 µm and BRIDGE: 70±23 µm, where MOD1 and MOD2 were statistically significantly different from BRIDGE. In vitro manufacturing trueness of Resultant when MOD1 acted reference for BRIDGE was: 69 ± 22. CONCLUSIONS: This method can be applied for assessing in vivo trueness. CAD/CAM processed IFD showed deviations twice that of impression-based models, however, errors from impressions and subsequent model scans were not additive to the entire workflow.

3-D tooth movement adjacent to single anterior implants and esthetic outcome. A 14- to 20-year follow-up study.

OBJECTIVES: To report three-dimensional (3-D) movement of teeth adjacent to single-implant crowns (SICs) in the anterior maxilla and to relate the findings to patient characteristics and esthetic outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 3-D movements of teeth adjacent to anterior maxillary SICs were measured in 30 patients with original SICs in function after 14-20 years. The movements were related to facial type, lower anterior facial height (LAFH), age at crown delivery, sex, the position of the implant, implant occlusion, cause of tooth loss, follow-up period, orthodontic treatment prior to implant placement, and marginal bone-level changes. The esthetic outcome and quality were assessed using Visual Analog scale (VAS) and California Dental Association (CDA) index. RESULTS: 3-D movement of adjacent teeth between 0 and 2.5 mm was observed at follow-up with incisal and palatal movement being most pronounced. Incisal tooth movement of >1 mm was observed in 30% of the patients and was significantly associated with LAFH ≥70 mm. VAS rating associated poorly between patients and clinicians with scores of >80% in 63% and 20%, respectively. The CDA rating was assessed as satisfactory in 87% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly more extensive infraposition was observed in patients with SICs without occlusion, other causes of tooth loss than trauma, implant in lateral incisor and canine position, and a LAFH of ≥70 mm. Although infraposition occurs, patients are highly satisfied with the esthetics of their implants and the esthetic results are valued as higher by patients than dentists.

Finish line distinctness and accuracy in 7 intraoral scanners versus conventional impression: an in vitro descriptive comparison.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have evaluated accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS), but data is lacking regarding variations between IOS systems in the depiction of the critical finish line and the finish line accuracy. The aim of this study was to analyze the level of finish line distinctness (FLD), and finish line accuracy (FLA), in 7 intraoral scanners (IOS) and one conventional impression (IMPR). Furthermore, to assess parameters of resolution, tessellation, topography, and color. METHODS: A dental model with a crown preparation including supra and subgingival finish line was reference-scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOS), and scanned with seven IOS: 3M, CS3500 and CS3600, DWIO, Omnicam, Planscan and Trios. An IMPR was taken and poured, and the model was scanned with a laboratory scanner. The ATOS scan was cropped at finish line and best-fit aligned for 3D Compare Analysis (Geomagic). Accuracy was visualized, and descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: All IOS, except Planscan, had comparable overall accuracy, however, FLD and FLA varied substantially. Trios presented the highest FLD, and with CS3600, the highest FLA. 3M, and DWIO had low overall FLD and low FLA in subgingival areas, whilst Planscan had overall low FLD and FLA, as well as lower general accuracy. IMPR presented high FLD, except in subgingival areas, and high FLA. Trios had the highest resolution by factor 1.6 to 3.1 among IOS, followed by IMPR, DWIO, Omnicam, CS3500, 3M, CS3600 and Planscan. Tessellation was found to be non-uniform except in 3M and DWIO. Topographic variation was found for 3M and Trios, with deviations below +/- 25 µm for Trios. Inclusion of color enhanced the identification of the finish line in Trios, Omnicam and CS3600, but not in Planscan. CONCLUSIONS: There were sizeable variations between IOS with both higher and lower FLD and FLA than IMPR. High FLD was more related to high localized finish line resolution and non-uniform tessellation, than to high overall resolution. Topography variations were low. Color improved finish line identification in some IOS. It is imperative that clinicians critically evaluate the digital impression, being aware of varying technical limitations among IOS, in particular when challenging subgingival conditions apply.

Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Intraoral scanners may use proprietary acquisition and manufacturing processes. However, limited information is available regarding their accuracy, their precision, and the influence that refraction or coating may have on their output. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the scanning accuracy and precision of 4 intraoral scanners and to assess the influence of different test materials and coating thicknesses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Models were fabricated in 3 materials (polymethyl methacrylate [Telio CAD], titanium, and zirconia) and reference scanned with an industrial optical scanner. The models were scanned with intraoral scanners (3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, E4D, and iTero). A thick layer of coating was applied and scanned (3M Lava COS). Further evaluation on a gypsum cast was undertaken for the E4D system. Data were evaluated by using 3-dimensional analysis with "3D compare" software commands (3D compare analysis) regarding standard, mean, and maximum deviations, with subsequent statistical analysis. RESULTS: The 3M Lava COS, Cerec AC/Bluecam, and iTero generally displayed similar results regarding deviations. Maximum deviations, however, increased by several factors for the noncoating scanners (iTero and E4D). Statistical significance was found regarding material properties for noncoating scanners (P<.05). iTero displayed consistent material-specific, localized errors on the translucent material (Telio CAD). E4D showed the largest deviations. Scans of the gypsum cast displayed specific localized areas with greater deviations. Excessive coating was nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found between the coating and noncoating scanners, and specific scanning errors for the system with parallel confocal microscopy were found for certain model materials. Specific areas of sizable deviations for the system with laser triangulation technology can be explained by the scanner design and noncoating technology. Excessive coating had no negative effect.