Comparison of 3D positional accuracy of implant analogs in printed resin models versus conventional stone casts: Effect of implant angulation.

PURPOSE: To study the effect of implant angulation on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in printed resin models and conventional stone casts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three sectional master models with two implants with total inter-implant angulations of 0°, 10°, and 20° were fabricated. For each master model, five conventional stone casts (CS) and printed resin models (PM) were fabricated (n = 5). Test models were made with nonsplinted impression copings and open tray polyether impressions for the CS groups and scan bodies scanned using an intraoral scanner for the PM groups. The physical positions of the implants and implant analogs were measured with a coordinate measuring machine. 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D positional accuracy of the analogs in the test models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyze data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Mean ΔR was significantly greater for PM10 (73.5 ± 8.9 µm) and PM20 (65.5 ± 33.3 µm) compared to CS0 (16.8 ± 14.1 µm), CS10 (22.2 ± 13.0 µm), CS20 (15.6 ± 19.9 µm), and PM0 (23.9 ± 16.1 µm). For Absdθ, there were no significant differences between test groups. CONCLUSIONS: With conventional stone casts, implant angulation had no significant effect on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions. Amongst printed resin models test groups, angulated implants had significantly greater ΔR. Amongst angulated implants test groups, printed resin models had significantly greater ΔR than conventional stone casts. Compared to the master model, all test groups, regardless of inter-implant angulation, produced greater inter-analog distances.

Accuracy of Implant Analogs in 3D Printed Resin Models.

PURPOSE: To study the effect of implant analog system, print orientation, and analog holder radial offset on 3D linear and absolute angular distortions of implant analogs in 3D printed resin models. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A sectional master model simulating a 2-implant, 3-unit fixed prosthesis in a partially edentulous jaw was fabricated. Three implant analog systems for 3D printed resin models-Straumann (ST), Core3DCentres (CD) and Medentika (MD)-were tested. The corresponding scan bodies were secured onto the implants and scanned using an intraoral scanner. Models were obtained with a Digital Light Processing printer. Each implant analog system had 2 print orientations (transverse [X] and perpendicular [Y] to the printer door) and 2 analog holder radial offsets (0.04 mm and 0.06 mm), for a total of 60 models. The physical positions of the implants in the master model and the analogs in the printed resin models were directly measured with a Coordinate Measuring Machine (CMM). 3D linear distortion (ΔR) and absolute angular distortion (Absdθ) defined the 3D accuracy of the analogs in the printed models. Univariate ANOVA was used to analyse data followed by post hoc tests (Tukey HSD, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Mean ΔR for ST (-155.7 ± 60.6 µm), CD (124.9 ± 65.0 µm) and MD (-92.9 ± 48.0 µm) were significantly different (p < 0.01). Mean Absdθ was not significantly different between ST (0.57 ± 0.48°) and CD (0.41 ± 0.27°), but both were significantly different from MD (2.11 ± 1.14°) (p < 0.01). Print orientation had a significant effect on ΔR only but no discernible trend could be found. Analog holder radial offset had no significant effect on ΔR and Absdθ. CONCLUSIONS: Implant analog system had a significant effect on ΔR and Absdθ. Compared to the master model, CD produced greater mean interanalog distances, while ST and MD produced smaller mean interanalog distances. MD exhibited the greatest mean angular distortion which was significantly greater than ST and CD.

Comparison of Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Implant Impressions: Effect of Interimplant Distance in an Edentulous Arch.

PURPOSE: This study compared the three-dimensional (3D) accuracy of conventional impressions with digital impression systems (intraoral scanners and dental laboratory scanners) for two different interimplant distances in maxillary edentulous arches. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six impression systems comprising one conventional impression material(Impregum), two intraoral scanners (TRIOS and True Definition), and three dental laboratory scanners (Ceramill Map400, inEos X5, and D900) were evaluated on two completely edentulous maxillary arch master models (A and B) with six and eight implants, respectively. Centroid positions at the implant platform level were derived using either physical or virtual probe hits with a coordinate measuring machine. Comparison of centroid positions between master and test models (n = 5) defined linear distortions (dx, dy, dz), global linear distortions (dR), and 3D reference distance distortions between implants (ΔR). The two-dimensional (2D) angles between the central axis of each implant to the x- or y-axes were compared to derive absolute angular distortions (Absdθx, Absdθy). RESULTS: Model A mean dR ranged from 8.7 ± 8.3 µm to 731.7 ± 62.3 µm. Model B mean dR ranged from 16.3 ± 9 µm to 620.2 ± 63.2 µm. Model A mean Absdθx ranged from 0.021 ± 0.205 degrees to -2.349 ± 0.166 degrees, and mean Absdθy ranged from -0.002 ± 0.160 degrees to -0.932 ± 0.290 degrees. Model B mean Absdθx ranged from -0.007 ± 0.076 degrees to -0.688 ± 0.574 degrees, and mean Absdθy ranged from -0.018 ± 0.048 degrees to -1.052 ± 0.297 degrees. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) by Impression system revealed significant differences among test groups for dR and ΔR in both models, with True Definition exhibiting the poorest accuracy. Independent samples t tests for dR, between homologous implant location pairs in Model A versus B, revealed the presence of two to four significant pairings (out of seven possible) for the intraoral scanner systems, in which instances dR was larger in Model A by 110 to 150 µm. CONCLUSION: Reducing interimplant distance may decrease global linear distortions (dR) for intraoral scanner systems, but had no effect on Impregum and the dental laboratory scanner systems. Impregum consistently exhibited the best or second-best accuracy at all implant locations, while True Definition exhibited the poorest accuracy for all linear distortions in both Models A and B. Impression systems could not be consistently ranked for absolute angular distortions.

Three-Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models-Part II: Effect of Model Scanner-CAD Systems and Articulation Method.

PURPOSE: Accurate maxillomandibular relationship transfer is important for CAD/CAM prostheses. This study compared the 3D-accuracy of virtual model static articulation in three laboratory scanner-CAD systems (Ceramill Map400 [AG], inEos X5 [SIR], Scanner S600 Arti [ZKN]) using two virtual articulation methods: mounted models (MO), interocclusal record (IR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The master model simulated a single crown opposing a 3-unit fixed partial denture. Reference values were obtained by measuring interarch and interocclusal reference features with a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). MO group stone casts were articulator-mounted with acrylic resin bite registrations while IR group casts were hand-articulated with poly(vinyl siloxane) bite registrations. Five test model sets were scanned and articulated virtually with each system (6 test groups, 15 data sets). STL files of the virtual models were measured with CMM software. dRR , dRC , and dRL , represented interarch global distortions at right, central, and left sides, respectively, while dRM , dXM , dYM , and dZM represented interocclusal global and linear distortions between preparations. RESULTS: Mean interarch 3D distortion ranged from -348.7 to 192.2 µm for dRR , -86.3 to 44.1 µm for dRC , and -168.1 to 4.4 µm for dRL . Mean interocclusal distortion ranged from -257.2 to -85.2 µm for dRM , -285.7 to 183.9 µm for dXM , -100.5 to 114.8 µm for dYM , and -269.1 to -50.6 µm for dZM . ANOVA showed that articulation method had significant effect on dRR and dXM , while system had a significant effect on dRR , dRC , dRL , dRM , and dZM . There were significant differences between 6 test groups for dRR, dRL dXM , and dZM . dRR and dXM were significantly greater in AG-IR, and this was significantly different from SIR-IR, ZKN-IR, and all MO groups. CONCLUSIONS: Interarch and interocclusal distances increased in MO groups, while they decreased in IR groups. AG-IR had the greatest interarch distortion as well as interocclusal superior-inferior distortion. The other groups performed similarly to each other, and the overall interarch distortion did not exceed 0.7%. In these systems and articulation methods, interocclusal distortions may result in hyper- or infra-occluded prostheses.

Three-Dimensional Static Articulation Accuracy of Virtual Models - Part I: System Trueness and Precision.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the 3D static articulation accuracy of 3 model scanner-CAD systems (Ceramill Map400 [AG], inEos X5 [SIR], Scanner S600 Arti [ZKN]) using a coordinate measuring machine (CMM). Trueness and precision for each system will be reported in Part I. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The master model simulated a single crown opposing a 3-unit fixed dental prosthesis. Five mounted stone cast sets were prepared, and one set was randomly selected. Reference values were obtained by measuring interarch and interocclusal reference features with the CMM. The stone cast set was scanned 5 times consecutively and articulated virtually with each system (3 test groups, n = 5). STL files of the virtual models were measured with CMM software. dRR , dRC , and dRL , represented interarch global distortions at right, central, and left sides, respectively, while dRM , dXM , dYM , and dZM represented interocclusal global and linear distortions between preparations. RESULTS: For trueness values, mean interarch global distortions ranged from 13.1 to 40.3 µm for dRR , -199.0 to -48.1 µm for dRC , and -114.1 to -47.7 µm for dRL . Mean percentage error of interarch distortion did not exceed 0.6%. Mean interocclusal distortions ranged from 16.0 to 117.0 µm for dRM , -33.1 to 101.3 µm for dXM , 32.9 to 49.9 µm for dYM and -32.0 to 133.1 µm for dZM. ANOVA of trueness found statistically significant differences for dRC , dRL , dRM , dXM , and dZM . For precision values, absolute mean difference between the 10 superimposition combinations ranged from 25.3 to 91.0 µm for dRR , 21.5 to 85.5 µm for dRC , 24.8 to 70.0 µm for dRL . Absolute mean difference ranged from 49.9 to 66.1 µm for dRM , 20.7 to 92.1 µm for dXM , 86.8 to 96.0 µm for dYM , and 36.5 to 100.0 µm for dZM . ANOVA of precision of all test groups found statistically significant differences for dRR , dRC , dRL , dXM and dZM , and the SIR group was the least precise. CONCLUSION: The overall interarch global distortion of all three model scanner-CAD systems was low and did not exceed 0.6%. Variations in scanner technology, virtual articulation algorithm, and use of physical articulators contributed to the differences in distortion observed among all three groups.

In Vitro Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: The Effect of Implant Angulation.

PURPOSE: To compare the three-dimensional (3D) accuracy of conventional impressions (CIs) with digital scans (DSs) using an intraoral scanner (IOS) with intraoral scan bodies (SBs) and varying buccolingual interimplant angulations. A secondary aim was to measure the SB machining tolerance and height with and without application of torque. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three master models (MMs) with two implants simulating an implant-supported three-unit fixed partial denture for bone-level implants were used. The implants had buccolingual interimplant angulations of 0, 10, and 20 degrees. Test models for the CI test groups were made with impression copings and polyether impressions. SBs were attached to the MMs, tightened to 15-Ncm torque, and scanned by an IOS for the DS test groups (six test groups, n = 5). A coordinate measuring machine measured linear distortions (dx, dy, dz), 3D distortions (dR), angular distortions (dθx, dθy), and absolute angular distortions (Absdθx, Absdθy) of the physical CI test models and STL files of the DS virtual models relative to the MMs. Metrology software allowed both physical and virtual measurement of geometric targets that were comparable and allowed computation of relative displacements of implant centroids and axes. RESULTS: Mean dR ranged from 31 ± 14.2 to 45 ± 3.4 µm for DS and 18 ± 8.4 to 36 ± 6.5 µm for the CI test groups. Mean Absdθx ranged from 0.041 ± 0.0318 to 0.794 ± 0.2739 degrees for DS and 0.073 ± 0.0618 to 0.545 ± 0.0615 degrees for the CI test groups. Mean Absdθy ranged from 0.075 ± 0.0615 to 0.111 ± 0.0639 degrees for DS and 0.106 ± 0.0773 to 0.195 ± 0.1317 degrees for the CI test groups. Two-way analysis of variance showed that the impression technique (P = .012) and implant angulations (P = .007) had a significant effect on dR. Distortions were mostly in the negative direction for DS test groups. Perfect coaxiality of the SB with the implant was never achieved. For SB to implant machining tolerances, the mean absolute horizontal displacement ranged from 4 ± 1.2 to 7 ± 2.3 µm. The SB dz was -5 ± 3.2 µm, which increased in the negative direction to -11 ± 4.9 µm with torque application (P = .002). CONCLUSION: Distortions were found for both DS and CI test groups. The best accuracy was obtained with CIs for parallel implants. With angulated implants, conventional and DSs were not significantly different. Excessive torque application that causes negative dz for SB fit would position the virtual implant at a deeper location compared with reality, resulting in possible framework misfit.

Three-dimensional accuracy of plastic transfer impression copings for three implant systems.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the three-dimensional accuracy of indirect plastic impression copings and direct implant-level impression copings from three implant systems (Nobel Biocare [NB], Biomet 3i [3i], and Straumann [STR]) at three interimplant buccolingual angulations (0, 8, and 15 degrees). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two-implant master models were used to simulate a three-unit implant fixed partial denture. Test models were made from Impregum impressions using direct implant-level impression copings (DR). Abutments were then connected to the master models for impressions using the plastic impression copings (INDR) at three different angulations for a total of 18 test groups (n = 5 in each group). A coordinate measuring machine was used to measure linear distortions, three-dimensional (3D) distortions, angular distortions, and absolute angular distortions between the master and test models. RESULTS: Three-way analysis of variance showed that the implant system had a significant effect on 3D distortions and absolute angular distortions in the x- and y-axes. Interimplant angulation had a significant effect on 3D distortions and absolute angular distortions in the y-axis. Impression technique had a significant effect on absolute angular distortions in the y-axis. With DR, the NB and 3i systems were not significantly different. With INDR, 3i appeared to have less distortion than the other systems. Interimplant angulations did not significantly affect the accuracy of NBDR, 3iINDR, and STRINDR. The accuracy of INDR and DR was comparable at all interimplant angulations for 3i and STR. For NB, INDR was comparable to DR at 0 and 8 degrees but was less accurate at 15 degrees. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional accuracy of implant impressions varied with implant system, interimplant angulation, and impression technique.

The effect of preparation height and luting agent on the resistance form of cemented cast crowns under load fatigue.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The minimum amount of resistance form required for the success of a clinical crown is unknown.There is little information on the fatigue performance of complete coverage restorations on natural tooth preparations cemented with different luting cements. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of tooth preparation height and luting agent on resistance form using unidirectional load fatigue testing. For a given tooth preparation with a clinically relevant total occlusal convergence (TOC), the adequacy of resistance form was investigated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty-four human maxillary premolars were prepared with occlusal-cervical dimensions of 2, 3,4, or 5 mm and a TOC of 20 degrees. Complete metal crowns were cemented using either zinc phosphate cement (HY Bond;ZP groups) or resin cement (Panavia F; PF groups). Cyclic load fatigue testing was done with an applied load of 6.0 kg at 2.6 Hz. Load cycles to preliminary failure were detected with a strain gauge at the palatal crown-tooth interface. Results were subjected to the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Wilcoxon post-hoc rank sum test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Groups ZP4, ZP5, PF2, PF3, PF4, and PF5 had the highest mean number of cycles to preliminary failure,while group ZP2 had the lowest mean number of cycles to failure. Group ZP2 was significantly different (P<.001) from all other test groups for the number of cycles to failure. CONCLUSIONS: For the 2- and 3-mm preparation height groups, zinc phosphate cement exhibited a poorer fatigue performance compared to Panavia F. There was no significant difference in the number of cycles to failure for groups ZP4,ZP5, PF2, PF3, PF4, and PF5. For both cements, the number of cycles to failure increased with increasing resistance length. (J Prosthet Dent 2009;102:155-164)