Premium
Effects of different types of intraoral scanners and scanning ranges on the precision of digital implant impressions in edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study
Author(s) -
Miyoshi Keita,
Tanaka Shinpei,
Yokoyama Sawako,
Sanda Minoru,
Baba Kazuyoshi
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
clinical oral implants research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.407
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1600-0501
pISSN - 0905-7161
DOI - 10.1111/clr.13548
Subject(s) - scanner , impression , region of interest , imaging phantom , dental arch , dental implant , anterior maxilla , implant , superimposition , computer science , biomedical engineering , maxilla , dentistry , computer vision , artificial intelligence , medicine , nuclear medicine , surgery , world wide web
Abstract Objective This study aimed to evaluate the precision of digital implant impressions in comparison with conventional impressions and assess the impact of the scanning range on precision. Materials and Methods An edentulous maxilla model with six implants was scanned with four intraoral scanners (IOSs) and a dental laboratory scanner five times each, and stereolithography (STL) data were generated. A conventional silicone impression was made, and a model was fabricated, which was scanned using the laboratory scanner. This procedure was also repeated five times. Nine different ranges of interest (ROIs) were defined, and the average discrepancies of the measurement points between each pair of STL images out of five for each ROI were calculated. The effects of “impression method” and “ROI” on precision, as evaluated by the averaged discrepancy, were tested by two‐way analysis of variance ( p < .05). Results The effects of “impression methods” and “ROI” and their interactions were statistically significant. The discrepancies in the scanned datasets of the dental laboratory scanner were significantly lower than those in the other impression methods. The discrepancies of the IOSs were comparable with those of the laboratory scanner when the ROI was limited, however; the discrepancies deteriorated when the ROI expanded across the arch, while those of the laboratory scanner remained stable irrespective of the ROI. Conclusions Within the limitation of this in vitro study, digital implant impressions by IOSs may show clinically acceptable precision when the scan range is limited, such as in 3‐unit superstructure supported by two implants.