Influence of Implant Scanbody Wear on the Accuracy of Digital Impression for Complete-Arch: A Randomized In Vitro Trial

Lorenzo Arcuri, Fabrizio Lio, Veronica Campana, Vincenzo Mazzetti, Francesca Romana Federici, Alessandra Nardi, Massimo Galli, Lorenzo Arcuri, Fabrizio Lio, Veronica Campana, Vincenzo Mazzetti, Francesca Romana Federici, Alessandra Nardi, Massimo Galli

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of implant scanbody (ISB) wear on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch. A polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) edentulous mandibular model with four internal hexagonal interlocking conical connections was scanned with an extraoral optical scanner to achieve a reference file. Four cylindrical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) ISBs were scanned 30 times with IOS, and the test files were aligned to the reference file with a best-fit algorithm. For each analog linear (ΔX, ΔY and ΔZ-axis) and angular deviations (ΔANGLE) were assessed. Euclidean distance (ΔEUC) was calculated from the linear deviation, reporting a mean of 82 µm (SD 61) ranging from 8 to 347 µm. ΔANGLE error mean was 0.33° (SD 0.20), ranging from 0.02 to 0.92°. From a multivariate analysis, when ΔEUC was considered as a response variable, a significant influence of ISB wear by scan number in interaction to position for implant 3.6 was identified (p < 0.0001); when ΔANGLE was considered as a response variable, a significant effect of position 3.6 was recorded ((p < 0.0001). The obtained results showed that the ISB wear negatively influenced the accuracy of IOS, suggesting that ISB base wear could be detrimental for the seating of ISBs on angulated implants.

Keywords: accuracy; complete arch; digital impression; intraoral optical scanning; scanbody; wear.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Edentulous mandibular polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) milled model with and without the removable soft tissue frame.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cylindrical polyetheretherketone (PEEK) implant scanbodies (ISBs).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Master model with ISBs on-site and relative IOS scan.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Reference file aligned with test files.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Analysis of Covariance for ΔEUC.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Distribution of linear discrepancies for implant in position of 3.6 related to all 30 scans. (ΔX = circle blue, ΔY = triangle red, ΔZ = square green).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Analysis of Covariance for ΔAngle.

References

    1. Örtorp A., Torsten J. CNC-milled titanium frameworks supported by implants in the edentulous jaw: A 10-year comparative clinical study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012;14:88–99. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2009.00232.x.
    1. Papaspyridakos P., Chen C.J., Chuang S.K., Weber H.P., Gallucci G.O. A systematic review of biologic and technical complications with fixed implant rehabilitations for edentulous patients. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2012;27:102–110.
    1. Arcuri L., Pozzi A., Lio F., Rompen E., Zechner W., Nardi A. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial. J. Prosthodont. Res. 2020;64:128–136. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.06.001.
    1. Jemt T., Hjalmarsson L. In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between “virtual” and “physical” assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012;14((Suppl. 1)):e175–e182. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8208.2011.00416.x.
    1. Papaspyridakos P., Lal K. Computer-assisted design/computer-assisted manufacturing zirconia implant fixed complete prostheses: Clinical results and technical complications up to 4 years of function. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013;24:659–665. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2012.02447.x.
    1. Rutkūnas V., Gečiauskaitė A., Jegelevičius D., Vaitiekūnas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J. Oral Implantol. 2017;10((Suppl. 1)):101–120.
    1. Ferrini F., Sannino G., Chiola C., Capparé P., Gastaldi G., Gherlone E.F. Influence of Intra-Oral Scanner (I.O.S.) on The Marginal Accuracy of CAD/CAM Single Crowns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2019;16:544. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16040544.
    1. Chew A.A., Esguerra R.J., Teoh K.H., Wong K.M., Ng S.D., Tan K.B. Three-Dimensional Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions: Effects of Different Scanners and Implant Level. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017;32:70–80. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4942.
    1. Carosi P., Ferrigno N., De Renzi G., Laureti M. Digital Workflow to Merge an Intraoral Scan and CBCT of Edentulous Maxilla: A Technical Report. J. Prosthodont. 2020;29:730–732. doi: 10.1111/jopr.13221.
    1. Lucchese A., Gherlone E., Portelli M., Bertossi D. Tooth Orthodontic Movement after Maxillofacial Surgery. Eur. J. Inflamm. 2012;10:227–232. doi: 10.1177/1721727X1201000208.
    1. Tetè G., Sacchi L., Camerano C., Nagni M., Capelli O., Giuntoli Vercellin S., La Rocca G., Polizzi E. Management of the delicate phase of the temporary crown: An in vitro study. J. Biol. Regul. Homeost. Agents. 2020;34((Suppl. 3)):69–80.
    1. Andriessen F.S., Rijkens D.R., van der Meer W.J., Wismeijer D.W. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2014;111:186–194. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.07.010.
    1. Vandeweghe S., Vervack V., Dierens M., De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: An in vitro study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2017;28:648–653. doi: 10.1111/clr.12853.
    1. Mizumoto R.M., Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018;120:343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.10.029.
    1. Jahn D. Scan body for determination of positioning and orientation of a dental implant. 14 011 936. U.S. Patent. 2014 December 25;
    1. Lee J.H., Bae J.H., Lee S.Y. Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials. Sci. Rep. 2021;11:21892. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-01442-9.
    1. Kim J., Son K., Lee K.B. Displacement of scan body during screw tightening: A comparative in vitro study. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2020;12:307–315. doi: 10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.307.
    1. Moreira A.H., Rodrigues N.F., Pinho A.C., Fonseca J.C., Vilaça J.L. Accuracy Comparison of Implant Impression Techniques: A Systematic Review. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat Res. 2015;17((Suppl. 2)):e751–e764. doi: 10.1111/cid.12310.
    1. Jamari J., Ammarullah M.I., Saad A.P.M., Syahrom A., Uddin M., van der Heide E., Basri H. The Effect of Bottom Profile Dimples on the Femoral Head on Wear in Metal-on-Metal Total Hip Arthroplasty. J. Funct. Biomater. 2021;12:38. doi: 10.3390/jfb12020038.
    1. Adell R., Lekholm U., Rockler B., Brånemark P.I. A 15-year study of osseoin- tegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int. J. Oral Surg. 1981;10:387–416. doi: 10.1016/S0300-9785(81)80077-4.
    1. Papaspyridakos P., Benic G.I., Hogsett V.L., White G.S., Lal K., Gallucci G.O. Accuracy of implant casts generated from splinting and non-splinting impression techniques for edentulous patients: An optical scanning study. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2012;23:676–681. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2011.02219.x.
    1. Lee S.J., Betensky R.A., Gianneschi G.E., Gallucci G.O. Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015;26:715–719. doi: 10.1111/clr.12375.
    1. Brandt J., Lauer H., Thorsten P., Brandt S. Digital process for an implant- supported fixed dental prosthesis: A clinical report. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2015;114:469–473. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.022.
    1. Pinto A., Arcuri L., Carosi P., Nardi R., Libonati A., Ottria L., Campanella V. In vitro evaluation of the post-space depth reading with an intraoral scanner (IOS) compared to a traditional silicon impression. Oral Implantol. 2017;10:360–368. doi: 10.11138/orl/2017.10.4.360.
    1. Ahlholm P., Sipilä K., Vallittu P., Jakonen M., Kotiranta U. Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics: A review. J. Prosthodont. 2018;27:35–41. doi: 10.1111/jopr.12527.
    1. Patzelt S.B., Vonau S., Stampf S., Att W. Assessing the feasibility and accuracy of digitizing edentulous jaws. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2013;144:914–920. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2013.0209.
    1. Mizumoto R.M., Yilmaz B., McGlumphy E.A., Seidt J., Johnston W.M. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020;123:96–104. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.01.003.
    1. Revilla-León M., Smith Z., Methani M.M., Zandinejad A., Özcan M. Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast. J. Prosthet Dent. 2021;125:918–923. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.019.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere