The type of scan body did not significantly affect the accuracy of digital impressions for bone-level implants and the mean and standard deviation of Root Mean Square Eror (RMSE) were calculated.
Abstract
Purpose:
Digital impression techniques in dentistry have emerged as a precise alternative to conventional methods. The accuracy of this process depends on multiple factors, including the design and material of the scan body, the type of scanner used, and the implant conditions.
Materials and Methods:
Four types of scan bodies from Dentis, Dentium, Dio, and Novodent were evaluated across 40 samples (10 per group). A reference model was first obtained with an industrial scanner (T-SCAN Hawk 2), and the samples were then scanned with an itraoral scanner (Medit i700). The resualting STL files were aligned in 3-Matic, and geometric deviations from the reference model were measured using the Best-Fit Alignment algorithm. Data were analyzed in SPSS (version 27) using one-way ANOVA with Turkey’s post hoc test, with significance set at 0.05.
Results:
The mean and standard deviation of Root Mean Square Eror (RMSE) were calculated for four scan bodies: Dentis, Dentinum, Dio, and Novodent. The reference group, Dentis, had a mean RMSE of 0.21± 0.10. Dentium showed a similar RMSE (0.21±0.08), indicating comparable accuracy to Dentis (P˃0.05). In contrast, Dio and Novodent showed lower RMSE values (0.14±0.02 and 0.15±0.06, respectively), indicating higher accuracy, although the differences were not statistically were not statistically significant (P˃0.05).
Conclusion:
The type of scan body did not significantly affect the accuracy of digital impressions for bone-level implants (P˃0.05).
Objective: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of implant vertical positioning on the accuracy of digital and conventional impressions for single implants using three-dimensional superimposition analysis.Material and Methods: A master model with a single implant analog (Biohorizons, 5.7 mm) was prepared at three different gingival depths (2 mm, 4 mm, and 6 mm) in the mandibular first molar region. Digital impressions were obtained using two intraoral scanners (Trios 3Shape and Cerec Omnicam), while conventional impressions were taken using polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) and condensation silicone (Type C silicone). In total, 96 test models (n=8 per group) were generated. All models were digitized and compared to the reference STL model using reverse-engineering software (Rapidform) for 3D deviation analysis. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05).Results: No statistically significant differences were observed between the digital impression groups (p>0.05). Among conventional techniques, the group using C-silicone showed significantly higher deviations than the PVS group (p
Vildan Aslıyüce, Nihal Özcan, Elif Yiğit İren et al.· Kırıkkale Üniversitesi Tıp F...· 0 citations
Evaluating how different ISB designs affect the trueness and precision of digital impressions in a completely edentulous maxillary arch with multiple implants found significant differences were found among ISBs in both trueness and precision.
Fernando Sanclemente-Reina, Carlos Serrano-Granger, Andrea Santamaría-Laorden et al.· International Dental Journal· 0 citations
Introduction This in vitro study assessed the accuracy of full-arch edentulous impressions obtained via intraoral scanning using various scanning strategies. This study aimed to evaluate whether the addition of surface markers would enhance scan precision in various anatomical regions of edentulous models, particularly on low-feature and smooth surfaces. Materials and Methods Sixty scans (30 maxillary and 30 mandibular) were performed using an intraoral scanner across three scanning protocols: unmodified (control), composite-resin, and drawn-line markers. Reference scans were obtained using a laboratory scanner. Scans were evaluated in four anatomical regions: the vestibule, residual ridge, palate/lingual area, and overall surface. Deviations were measured using the root mean square, mean deviation, and standard deviation. Two-way analysis of variance, with Tukey’s post hoc test, was used for the statistical analysis. Results The scanning strategy had no significant effect on the residual ridge area (p = .918). The jaw type significantly affected the scanning accuracy in all areas (p < .001), with greater deviations observed in the mandibular scans. Composite-resin and line marker strategies increased the accuracy in the mandibular vestibular and lingual regions. All root mean square error values remained within the clinically acceptable limits, although the numerical differences between the groups were minimal. Conclusion Full-arch intraoral scanning of edentulous models demonstrated clinically acceptable accuracy, within the limitations of this in vitro study. Surface markers did not provide a significant advantage in the maxillary scans but may improve scanning performance in mandibular regions. These findings provide methodological insights into scanning performance on smooth and low-feature surfaces and should be interpreted cautiously when extrapolating to clinical intraoral conditions.
Emel Arslan, H. Yemenoğlu· Journal of Applied Dentistry...· 0 citations
Aim
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the accuracy of four intraoral scanners (IOS) in capturing the three-dimensional positions of orthodontic brackets on dental models.
Methods
Twenty maxillary dental models bonded with MBT stainless steel brackets were scanned using four IOS systems: Primescan, Trios 4, iTero Element 5D, and Medit i700. A high-accuracy laboratory scanner served as the reference standard. Each model was scanned twice with each IOS, yielding 160 datasets. Scans were aligned to the reference using a two-step superimposition protocol, and bracket slot-center deviations were measured in mesiodistal, occlusogingival, buccolingual, and angular dimensions. Trueness, precision, and clinically acceptable deviation rates were analyzed using ANOVA/Kruskal–Wallis tests and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Results
Primescan showed the highest trueness, with linear deviations of 0.05–0.07 mm and angular deviations of 0.58–0.62°. Trios 4 demonstrated similar accuracy, remaining within ±0.10mm and ± 1°. iTero Element 5D exhibited greater variation (0.10–0.12mm; 1.12–1.25°), while Medit i700 showed the highest deviations (0.11–0.13mm; 1.29–1.41°). Clinically acceptable deviation rates were 92.5% for Primescan, 88.1% for Trios 4, 76.4% for iTero, and 62.7% for Medit. Precision analysis showed the lowest repeat-scan variability for Primescan (0.03 ± 0.01 mm), whereas Medit displayed the highest variability. ICC values exceeded 0.90 for all scanners.
Conclusion
Scanner accuracy varied significantly, with Primescan and Trios 4 demonstrating superior trueness and precision. iTero and Medit showed reduced accuracy, particularly in angular measurements. Scanner selection is therefore critical for workflows requiring high-fidelity bracket capture.
Ali Furkan Karakoyunlu, Ozum Dasdemir Ozkan· The Annals of Clinical and A...· 0 citations
PURPOSE
This study assessed the accuracy of full-arch implant prostheses milled using a reverse scan body (RSB) impression technique compared to those generated from a digitized master cast using a desktop scanner.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A mandibular All-on-4 master cast was created and digitized using a reference desktop scanner. For each RSB scan (Group 1), an interim milled polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) prosthesis was picked up from the cast, RSBs were hand-tightened, and captured using an intraoral scanner (IOS). For Group 2, abutment-level scan bodies were hand-tightened into the multiunit abutments (MUAs) of the master cast and scanned using a desktop scanner. The deviation between each resultant scan from each group was digitally compared to the MUAs position of the digitized master cast. The digital deviation and clinical passivity (modified one screw and screw resistance tests) between the milled zirconia prosthesis from each group were compared to the master cast.
RESULTS
The deviation of the RSB-IOS impression (median = 0.07 mm) was statistically significant (p = 0.015) when compared to the desktop scan impression (median = 0.05 mm). For the milled zirconia prostheses, a similar statistically significant difference was observed with corresponding deviation values of 0.15 ± 0.02 and 0.11 ± 0.01 mm for the RSB and the desktop scanner groups, respectively. The passivity of the zirconia prostheses on the master cast showed variability when judged by three outcome assessors.
CONCLUSION
The RSB technique was inferior to the desktop scan in terms of digital impression and definitive prostheses accuracy. However, the RSB technique produced zirconia prostheses within the clinically acceptable deviation value of 0.15 mm.
Unknown authors· Journal of Prosthodontics· 0 citations
PURPOSE
This study compared the trueness of four digital impression methods in capturing complete-arch implant positions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An edentulous mandibular model with four angled multi-unit abutment analogs was fabricated and digitized using a desktop scanner (Vinyl HR; Smart Optics) to create a reference dataset. An intraoral scanner (IOS) (Aoralscan Elite; Shining three-dimensional [3D]) equipped with intraoral photogrammetry (IPG) was used for the experimental scans. Four methods were evaluated: direct scanning without splinting (scan body [SB]), splinting scan bodies with light-polymerized acrylic resin (SP), scanning with custom 3D-printed scan aids (SAs), and IPG. A power analysis determined the need for 21 scans per group. Standard tessellation language files were imported into CAD software, converted into implant abutment replicas, and analyzed using 3D inspection software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems) to assess 3D, linear, and angular discrepancies. Trueness was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and one-way analysis of variance tests (α = 0.05), followed by post hoc analysis.
RESULTS
The SB group showed the highest 3D distortion, and the SP group exhibited the highest angular deviation. The IPG and SA groups had comparable linear and 3D deviation values without significant differences. IPG demonstrated the lowest angular distortion of all methods. The right posterior implant recorded the highest 3D distortion, whereas the right anterior implant exhibited the greatest angular deviation.
CONCLUSIONS
IPG and SA approaches yielded comparable results, except for angular distortion. These findings provide evidence for selecting optimal digital workflows in full-arch implant rehabilitation. Scan aids can enhance the performance of IOSs in acquiring complete-arch digital impressions, with trueness values approaching IPG systems.
Lina Aljumaili, İ. Cinar· Journal of Prosthodontics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
