Objective: To determine the effect of scan pattern on the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOS) used to digitize implants in edentulous arches. Material and Methods: Implant analogs were placed in the tooth regions #26, #24, #23, #11, #13, #14, and #16 of the edentulous maxillary acrylic model. The model was scanned 10 times with a laboratory scanner (E4, 3Shape) to obtain reference data. Intraoral scans (Trios 5, 3Shape) were performed with six different scan patterns including occlusal-buccal-palatine (OBP), buccal-occlusalpalatine (BOP), buccal-palatine-occlusal (BPO), palatine-occlusal-buccal (POB), zigzag (ZZ) and circumferential (C) (n=10). Centroid and centre-axis of scan bodies were determined using a 3D-metrology program. The distance and angles between implants (#26-#24, #24-#23, #23-#11, #11-#13, #13-#14, #14-#16) were calculated. Linear and angular deviation values were determined by subtracting the measurements from the means of reference scans. Two-way analysis of variance and Tukey post-hoc test with Bonferroni adjustment were used to compare the effect of scan pattern and implant regions on scan accuracy (p<0.05). Results: The linear deviation of C was higher than POB (p=0.008), ZZ (p=0.035) and BOP (p=0.045). The #16-#26 region had highest linear deviation (p<0.001). The angular deviation of BPO was higher than OBP (p=0.01). #23-#11 and #16-#26 region had highest angular deviations (p<0.001). Conclusion: The scan pattern and the distance between the implants affected the linear and angular accuracy of the IOS. C scan pattern negatively affects the linear deviation values. Lower angular deviation values can be achieved with the scan pattern (OBP) recommended by the scanner manufacturer.
Keywords: Dental implants; dental impression technique; dental prosthesis, implant-supported
Amaç: Dişsiz arklarda implant pozisyonlarını dijital ortama aktarmak için kullanılan ağız içi tarayıcıların [intraoral scanners (IOS)] doğruluğu üzerinde tarama paternlerinin etkisini belirlenmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Dişsiz maksiller akrilik modelin #26, #24, #23, #11, #13, #14 ve #16 diş bölgelerine implant analogları yerleştirildi. Model, referans veriler elde etmek için bir laboratuvar tarayıcısı (E4, 3Shape) ile 10 kez tarandı. Ağız içi taramalar (Trios 5, 3Shape) okluzal-bukkalpalatin (OBP), bukkal-okluzal-palatin (BOP), bukkal-palatin-okluzal (BPO), palatin-okluzal-bukkal (POB), zigzag (ZZ) ve çevresel (C) olmak üzere 6 farklı tarama paterni gerçekleştirildi (n=10). Tarama gövdelerinin merkezi ve merkez ekseni bir 3D-metroloji programı kullanılarak belirlendi. İmplantlar arasındaki mesafe ve açılar (#26-#24, #24-#23, #23-#11, #11-#13, #13-#14, #14-#16) hesaplandı. Doğrusal ve açısal sapma değerleri, ölçümlerin referans taraması ölçümlerinin ortalamasından çıkarılmasıyla belirlendi. İki yönlü varyans analizi ve Bonferroni düzeltmeli Tukey ''post hoc'' testi, tarama paterni ve implant bölgelerinin tarama doğruluğu üzerindeki etkisini karşılaştırmak için kullanıldı (p<0,05). Bulgular: C'nin doğrusal sapması POB (p=0,008), ZZ (p=0,035) ve BOP2tan (p=0,045) daha yüksekti. 16-#26 bölgesi en yüksek doğrusal sapmaya sahipti (p<0,001). BPO'nun açısal sapması OBP'den daha yüksekti (p=0,01). #23-#11 ve #16-#26 bölgeleri en yüksek açısal sapmalara sahipti (p<0,001). Sonuç: Tarama paterni ve implantlar arasındaki mesafe İOS'nin doğrusal ve açısal doğruluğunu etkilemektedir. C tarama paterni doğrusal sapma değerlerini olumsuz etkilemektedir. Tarayıcı üreticisi tarafından önerilen tarama paterni (OBP) ile daha düşük açısal sapma değerleri elde edilebilir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Diş implantları; diş ölçü tekniği; diş protezi, implant destekli
- Kim KR, Seo KY, Kim S. Conventional open-tray impression versus intraoral digital scan for implant-level complete-arch impression. J Prosthet Dent. 2019;122(6):543-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Knechtle N, Wiedemeier D, Mehl A, Ender A. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128(3):468-78. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Menini M, Setti P, Pera F, Pera P, Pesce P. Accuracy of multi-unit implant impression: traditional techniques versus a digital procedure. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(3):1253-62. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Katsoulis J, Takeichi T, Sol Gaviria A, Peter L, Katsoulis K. Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10 Suppl 1:121-38. [PubMed]
- Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: a pilot study. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):186-94. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Önöral Ö, Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, Toksoy D, Ozan O. Effect of angulation on the 3D trueness of conventional and digital implant impressions for multi-unit restorations. J Adv Prosthodont. 2023;15(6):290-301. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Yilmaz H, Arınç H, Çakmak G, Atalay S, Donmez MB, Kökat AM, et al. Effect of scan pattern on the scan accuracy of a combined healing abutment scan body system. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(1):110-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Albayrak B, Sukotjo C, Wee AG, Korkmaz İH, Bayındır F. Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(2):163-70. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Thanasrisuebwong P, Kulchotirat T, Anunmana C. Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: an in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2021;13(2):107-16. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Kaya G, Bilmenoglu C. Accuracy of 14 intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept: a comparative in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14(6):388-98. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Papaspyridakos P, Chen YW, Alshawaf B, Kang K, Finkelman M, Chronopoulos V, et al. Digital workflow: in vitro accuracy of 3D printed casts generated from complete-arch digital implant scans. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(5):589-93. Erratum in: J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129(6):955. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(11):1360-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Carneiro Pereira AL, Medeiros VR, Campos MFTP, de Medeiros AKB, Yilmaz B, Carreiro ADFP. Conventional and digital impressions for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: time, implant quantity effect and patient satisfaction. J Adv Prosthodont. 2022;14(4):212-22. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28(6):648-53. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wulfman C, Naveau A, Rignon-Bret C. Digital scanning for complete-arch implant-supported restorations: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124(2):161-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kanjanasavitree P, Thammajaruk P, Guazzato M. Comparison of different artificial landmarks and scanning patterns on the complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans. J Dent. 2022;125:104266. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Li Z, Huang R, Wu X, Chen Z, Huang B, Chen Z. Effect of scan pattern on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impressions with two intraoral scanners. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2022;37(4):731-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gavounelis NA, Gogola CC, Halazonetis DJ. The effect of scanning strategy on intraoral scanner's accuracy. Dent J (Basel). 2022;10(7):123. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Oh KC, Park JM, Moon HS. Effects of scanning strategy and scanner type on the accuracy of intraoral scans: a new approach for assessing the accuracy of scanned data. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(6):518-23. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Jamjoom FZ, Aldghim A, Aldibasi O, Yilmaz B. Impact of intraoral scanner, scanning strategy, and scanned arch on the scan accuracy of edentulous arches: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131(6):1218-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Misch CE. Dental Implant Prosthetics. 2nd ed. St. Louis, Mo: Elsevier Inc; 2015. [Crossref]
- Ezmek B, Sipahi OC. Evaluation the scanning accuracy of blue-light laboratory scanners in complete edentulous maxilla with multiple implants with titanium scan bodies. Odovtos-Int J Dent Sci. 2023;25(3):55-66. [Crossref]
- Pan Y, Tam JMY, Tsoi JKH, Lam WYH, Pow EHN. Reproducibility of laboratory scanning of multiple implants in complete edentulous arch: effect of scan bodies. J Dent. 2020;96:103329. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Çakmak G, Yilmaz H, Treviño A, Kökat AM, Yilmaz B. The effect of scanner type and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(4):533-41. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Donmez MB, Çakmak G, Atalay S, Yilmaz H, Yilmaz B. Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment-scan body system depending on the scan pattern and implant location: an in-vitro study. J Dent. 2022;124:104169. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gómez-Polo M, Álvarez F, Ortega R, Gómez-Polo C, Barmak AB, Kois JC, et al. Influence of the implant scan body bevel location, implant angulation and position on intraoral scanning accuracy: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2022;121:104122. Erratum in: J Dent. 2022;126:104274. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: an in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;31(7):625-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fukazawa S, Odaira C, Kondo H. Investigation of accuracy and reproducibility of abutment position by intraoral scanners. J Prosthodont Res. 2017;61(4):450-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kernen F, Brändle D, Wagendorf O, Recca M, Mehrhof J, Vach K, et al. Enhancing intraoral scanner accuracy using scan aid for multiple implants in the edentulous arch: an in vivo study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2023;34(8):793-801. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):96-104. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Imburgia M, Kois J, Marino E, Lerner H, Mangano FG. Continuous scan strategy (CSS): a novel technique to improve the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2020;28(3):128-41. [PubMed]
- Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen YW, Natto Z, et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: a prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. J Prosthodont. 2020;29(4):281-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Winter W, Mohrle S, Holst S, Karl M. Bone loading caused by different types of misfits of implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a three-dimensional finite element analysis based on experimental results. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2010;25(5):947-52. [PubMed]
.: Process List