Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Digital Volume Tomography | Research

Accuracy and dimensional reproducibility by model scanning, intraoral scanning, and CBCT imaging for digital implant dentistry

Authors: Akira Komuro, Yoichi Yamada, Satoshi Uesugi, Hiroaki Terashima, Masashi Kimura, Hiroto Kishimoto, Tsutomu Iida, Katsuya Sakamoto, Kenichi Okuda, Kaoru Kusano, Shunsuke Baba, Takashi Sakamoto

Published in: International Journal of Implant Dentistry | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recently, it has become possible to analyze implant placement position using the digital matching data of optical impression data of the oral cavity or plaster models with cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data, and create a highly accurate surgical guide. It has been reported that CBCT measurements were smaller than the actual values, termed shrinkage. Matching of digital data is reliable when the plaster model or intraoral impression values show shrinkage at the same rate as the CBCT data. However, if the shrinkage rate is significantly different, the obtained digital data become unreliable. To clarify digital matching reliability, we examined dimensional reproducibility and shrinkage in measurements obtained with a model scanner, intra-oral scanner (iOS), and CBCT.

Materials and methods

Three implants that were arranged in a triangle were fixed in an acrylic plate. The distance between each implants were measured using model scanner, iOS, and CBCT. The actual size measured by electronic caliper was regarded as control.

Results

All values measured with CBCT were significantly smaller than that of model scanner, iOS, and control (p<0.001). The model scanner shrinkage was 0.37-0.39%, iOS shrinkage was 0.9-1.4%, and CBCT shrinkage was 1.8-6.9%. There were statistically significant differences among the shrinkage with iOS, CBCT, and model scanner (p<0.001).

Conclusion

Our findings showed that all measurements obtained with those modalities showed shrinkage as compared to the actual values. In addition, CBCT shrinkage was largest among three different measuring methods. They indicated that data matching between CBCT and scanner measurements requires attention in regard to the reliability of values obtained with those devices.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Jansen CE. CBCT technology for diagnosis and treatment planning: what general practitioners should consider. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2014;35(10):749–53.PubMed Jansen CE. CBCT technology for diagnosis and treatment planning: what general practitioners should consider. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2014;35(10):749–53.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):203–13.CrossRef Jacobs R, Quirynen M. Dental cone beam computed tomography: justification for use in planning oral implant placement. Periodontol 2000. 2014;66(1):203–13.CrossRef
7.
8.
go back to reference Kimura M, Kishimoto H, Komuro A, Okuda K, Kubo S, Sakamoto T. Evaluation of the osseointegration using X-ray imaging diagnosis. J Bio-Integ. 2016;6:47–9. Kimura M, Kishimoto H, Komuro A, Okuda K, Kubo S, Sakamoto T. Evaluation of the osseointegration using X-ray imaging diagnosis. J Bio-Integ. 2016;6:47–9.
10.
go back to reference Su T, Sun J. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313–21.CrossRef Su T, Sun J. Intraoral digital impression technique: a review. J Prosthodont. 2015;24(4):313–21.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Abhishek S, Anuj M, Sunita S, Pooja MS, Akhilanand C. Understanding artifacts in cone beam computed tomography. Int J Maxillofacial Imaging. 2016;2(2):51–4. Abhishek S, Anuj M, Sunita S, Pooja MS, Akhilanand C. Understanding artifacts in cone beam computed tomography. Int J Maxillofacial Imaging. 2016;2(2):51–4.
13.
go back to reference Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2016;29:277–83.CrossRef Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson. Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int. J. Prosthodont. 2016;29:277–83.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Logozzo S, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Caponi M, Governi L, Blois L. A comparative analysis of intraoral 3d digital scanners for restorative dentistry. Internet J Med Technol. 2011;5:1. Logozzo S, Franceschini G, Kilpela A, Caponi M, Governi L, Blois L. A comparative analysis of intraoral 3d digital scanners for restorative dentistry. Internet J Med Technol. 2011;5:1.
Metadata
Title
Accuracy and dimensional reproducibility by model scanning, intraoral scanning, and CBCT imaging for digital implant dentistry
Authors
Akira Komuro
Yoichi Yamada
Satoshi Uesugi
Hiroaki Terashima
Masashi Kimura
Hiroto Kishimoto
Tsutomu Iida
Katsuya Sakamoto
Kenichi Okuda
Kaoru Kusano
Shunsuke Baba
Takashi Sakamoto
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Journal of Implant Dentistry / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2198-4034
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40729-021-00343-w

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

International Journal of Implant Dentistry 1/2021 Go to the issue