journal article·2021-09-14Open access

The Influence of Laboratory Scanner Versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining the Implant Axis by Using Three Different Scan Abutments

Asaf Shely, Shiri Livne, Gil Ben-Izhack, Michal Lokshin, Shahar Har-Nes, Helena Zelikman, Sigalit Blumer, Eran Dolev

Applied Sciences· Volume 11· Issue 18

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the implant axis’ spatial position and orientation by using laboratory scanner versus intra-oral scanner with three different scan abutments. Methods: A 3D model was printed with an internal hex implant analog in the place of teeth 35#. Three standard scan abutments were used: MIS (two-piece titanium), AB (two-piece PEEK and titanium base) and ZZ (one-piece PEEK). Each scan abutment was scanned 30 times by TRIOS E3 (laboratory scanner) and 30 times by Omnicam (intra-oral scanner). For each scan, an STL (stereolithography) file was created, and the spatial characterization of each scan abutment was measured in the X, Y, Z coordinates, and rotational and longitudinal angles. The comparison between all the scans was conducted by superimposition of the STL files, using a 3D software. A t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used. (p < 0.05) Results: Only the MIS scan abutment showed no statistical difference in the X and Z axes. (p < 0.05). All other scan abutments showed a statistical difference in all axes. The rotational angle of the AB scan abutment was twice the angle of the MIS and ZZ scan abutments. Conclusions: All three scan abutments showed a rotational deviation of the implant axis between the laboratory scanner and the intra-oral scanner. The AB scan abutment showed the greatest deviation (1.04 degrees) while the other two abutments showed deviations of about half a degree in relation to the laboratory scan abutment. There is a need for further studies which will examine the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the accuracy of the scan obtained.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Dental materials and restorations · Dental Radiography and Imaging

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel

Department of Pediatric Dentistry, The Maurice and Gabriela Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6997801, Israel

References (26)

Show source-provided references
1. Rosenstiel, S.F., and Land, M.F. (2015). Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics, Elsevier Health Sciences.
2. Fit of CAD/CAM Tooth-supported Single Crowns and Fixed Dental Prostheses10.1007/s40496-017-0139-x ↗
3. An overview of the CEREC 3D CAD/CAM system
4. Culp, L., Wong, N.Y., and Misch, C.E. (2015). Digital Technology in Implant Dentistry. Dental Implant Prosthetics, Elsevier Mosby. [2nd ed.].10.1016/B978-0-323-07845-0.00027-0 ↗
5. In vitro evaluation of prosthodontic impression on natural dentition: A comparison between traditional and digital techniques10.11138/orl/2016.9.1S.021 ↗
6. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Impression versus Conventional Method: Effect of Implant Angulation and Connection Type10.1155/2018/3761750 ↗
7. The accuracy of implant impressions: A systematic review10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60208-5 ↗
8. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: A comparative study10.1111/clr.12994 ↗
9. Accuracy of Digital vs Conventional Implant Impression Approach: A Three-Dimensional Comparative In Vitro Analysis10.11607/jomi.5431 ↗
10. Digital versus conventional impressions for fixed prosthodontics: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.12.017 ↗
11. Modeling of ultrathin occlusal veneers10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.002 ↗
12. PEEK polymer’s properties and its use in prosthodontics. A review
13. A Novel Method to Evaluate Precision of Optical Implant Impressions with Commercial Scan Bodies-An Experimental Approach10.1111/jopr.12362 ↗
14. Comparison of fit accuracy and torque maintenance of zirconia and titanium abutments for internal tri-channel and external-hex implant connections10.4047/jap.2017.9.4.271 ↗
15. Virtual-Designed and Computer-Milled Implant Abutments10.1016/j.joms.2005.05.158 ↗
16. Understanding dental CAD/CAM for restorations--accuracy from a mechanical engineering viewpoint
17. Evaluation of the accuracy of extraoral laboratory scanners with a single-tooth abutment model: A 3D analysis10.1016/j.jpor.2016.09.002 ↗
18. Factors Affecting the Decision to Use Cemented or Screw-Retained Fixed Implant-Supported Prostheses: A Critical Review10.11607/ijp.5279 ↗
19. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis10.1111/clr.13273 ↗
20. Accuracy of complete-arch intraoral scans based on confocal microscopy versus optical triangulation: A comparative in vitro study10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.04.019 ↗
21. Impact of Different Scan Bodies and Scan Strategies on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Assessed with an Intraoral Scanner: An In Vitro Study10.1111/jopr.13131 ↗
22. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010 ↗
23. Occlusal considerations in implant therapy: Clinical guidelines with biomechanical rationale10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.01067.x ↗
24. Revilla-León, M., Smith, Z., Methani, M.M., Zandinejad, A., and Özcan, M. (2020). Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast. J. Prosthet. Dent.10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.019 ↗
25. Lee, S.J., Kim, S.-W., Lee, J.J., and Cheong, C.W. (2020). Comparison of Intraoral and Extraoral Digital Scanners: Evaluation of Surface Topography and Precision. Dent. J., 8.10.3390/dj8020052 ↗
26. The effect of the improperly scanned scan body images on the accuracy of virtual implant positioning in computer-aided design software10.4047/jap.2020.12.3.107 ↗