Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast.

Autor: Revilla-León M; Assistant Professor and Assistant Program Director AEGD residency, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas; Affiliate Faculty Graduate Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash; Researcher at Revilla Research Center, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: revillaleon@tamu.edu., Smith Z; Graduate student AEGD residency, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas., Methani MM; Student Master of Science in Oral Biology, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas., Zandinejad A; Associate Professor and Program Director AEGD residency, College of Dentistry, Texas A&M University, Dallas, Texas., Özcan M; Professor and Head, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Clinic for Resconstructive Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University of Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: The Journal of prosthetic dentistry [J Prosthet Dent] 2021 Jun; Vol. 125 (6), pp. 918-923. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 May 31.
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.019
Abstrakt: Statement of Problem: Previous studies have analyzed factors influencing intraoral scanner accuracy; however, how the intraoral scan body design affects the implant position on the virtual definitive cast is unclear.
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the discrepancies of the implant replica positions of the virtual definitive implant cast obtained by using 3 different scan body designs when performing a digital scan.
Material and Methods: A partially edentulous typodont with 3 implant replicas (Implant Replica RP Branemark system; Nobel Biocare Services AG) was prepared. Three groups were determined based on the scan body system evaluated: SB-1 (Elos Accurate Nobel Biocare), SB-2 (NT Digital Implant Technology), and SB-3 (Dynamic Abutment). Each scan body was positioned on each implant replica of the typodont, and was digitized by using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element; Cadent) as per the manufacturer's scanning protocol at 1000 lux illuminance. A standard tessellation language (STL) file was obtained. Before the scan bodies were removed from the typodont, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM Contura G2 10/16/06 RDS; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH) was used to measure the scan body positions on the x-, y-, and z-axis. The linear and angular discrepancies between the position of the scan bodies on the typodont and STL file were calculated by using the best fit technique with a specific program (Calypso; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH). The procedure was repeated until 10 STL files were obtained per group. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were not normally distributed. The data were analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).
Results: The coordinate measuring machine was unable to measure the scan body positions of the magnetically retained SB-3 group because of its mobility when palpating at the smallest pressure possible. Therefore, this group was excluded. No significant differences were found in the linear discrepancies between the SB-1 and SB-2 groups (P>.05). The most accurate scan body position was obtained on the z-axis. However, the SB-1 group revealed a significantly higher XZ angular discrepancy than the SB-2 group (P<.001).
Conclusions: The scan body systems tested (SB-1 and SB-2 groups) accurately transferred the linear implant positions to the virtual definitive implant cast. However, significant differences were observed in the XZ angular implant positions between the scan body systems analyzed.
(Copyright © 2020 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: