Premium
Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete‐arch implant rehabilitation
Author(s) -
Huang Ruoxuan,
Liu Yuanxiang,
Huang Baoxin,
Zhang Chaobiao,
Chen Zhuofan,
Li Zhipeng
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.13598
Subject(s) - impression , implant , arch , rehabilitation , orthodontics , dentistry , medicine , biomedical engineering , computer science , surgery , engineering , structural engineering , physical therapy , world wide web
Objectives To compare the accuracy of an original and two newly designed CAD/CAM scan bodies used in digital impressions with one another as well as conventional implant impressions. Material and methods A reference model containing four implants was fabricated. Digital impressions were taken using an intraoral scanner with different scan bodies: original scan bodies for Group I (DO), CAD/CAM scan bodies without extensional structure for Group II (DC), and CAD/CAM scan bodies with extensional structure for Group III (DCE). For Group IV, conventional splinted open‐tray impressions (CI) were taken. The reference model and conventional stone casts were digitalized with a laboratory reference scanner. The Standard Tessellation Language datasets were imported into an inspection software for trueness and precision assessment. Statistical analysis was performed with a Kruskal–Wallis test and Dunn–Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at α = .05. Results The median of trueness was 35.85, 38.50, 28.45, and 25.55 μm for Group I, II, III, and IV, respectively. CI was more accurate than DO ( p = .015) and DC ( p = .002). The median of precision was 48.40, 48.90, 27.30, and 19.00 for Group I, II, III, and IV, respectively. CI was more accurate than DO ( p < .001), DC ( p < .001), and DCE ( p = .007). DCE was more accurate than DC ( p < .001) and DO ( p < .001). Conclusions The design of the extensional structure could significantly improve scanning accuracy. Conventional splinted open‐tray impressions were more accurate than digital impressions for full‐arch implant rehabilitation.