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.