Influence of implant scan body material and intraoral scanner system on the accuracy of three-unit implant scans.
TL;DR
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, iTL demonstrated higher trueness and precision than the other IOSs tested, whereas PEEK and hybrid ISBs demonstrated higher trueness for 3-unit implant scans.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM The accuracy of implant scans may be influenced by the intraoral scanner (IOS) system and the intraoral scan body (ISB) materials. However, evidence regarding their impact remains limited.
Purpose
The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the trueness and precision of 3-unit implant scans using different ISBs and IOSs. MATERIAL AND
Methods
Two implants were placed in the right first premolar and first molar regions of a mandibular typodont model, and a 3-dimensional printed replica was fabricated. Three ISBs (Hybrid, polyetheretherketone [PEEK], titanium) were scanned using 3 IOSs: CEREC Primescan (CP), iTero Lumina (iTL), TRIOS 5 (T5). An industrial blue-light scanner (ATOS) served as the reference. Trueness was evaluated by superimposing experimental scans onto the reference scan, and precision by superimposing repeated scans of the same IOS. Three-dimensional discrepancy values were statistically analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni (α=.05).
Results
iTL demonstrated higher trueness and precision than other IOSs for all ISB groups (P<.05). Titanium ISBs showed lower trueness than PEEK and hybrid ISBs (P<.05), whereas no significant differences were observed between PEEK and hybrid ISBs (P>.05). For precision, significant differences among ISBs were observed only within the iTL group (P<.05); the titanium ISB showed the lowest precision.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, iTL demonstrated higher trueness and precision than the other IOSs tested, whereas PEEK and hybrid ISBs demonstrated higher trueness for 3-unit implant scans.