Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations 3/2012

01-06-2012 | Original Article

Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study

Authors: Michael Stimmelmayr, Jan-Frederik Güth, Kurt Erdelt, Daniel Edelhoff, Florian Beuer

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 3/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Dental restorations are increasingly manufactured by CAD/CAM systems. Currently, there are two alternatives for digitizing dental implants: direct intra-oral data capturing or indirect from a master cast, both with transfer caps (scanbodies). The aim of this study was the evaluation of the fit of the scanbodies and their ability of reposition. At the site of the first molars and canines, implants were placed bilaterally in a polymer lower arch model (original model), and an impression was taken for fabricating a stone cast (stone model). Ten white-light scans were obtained from the original and the stone model with the scanbodies in place. The scanbodies were retrieved after each scan and re-attached to the same implant or lab analogue. The first scan of the series served as control in both groups. The subsequent nine scans and control were superimposed using inspection software to identify the discrepancies of the four scanbodies in both experimental groups. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancy of the scanbodies was 39 μm (±58 μm) on the original implants versus 11 μm (±17 μm) on the lab analogues. The difference in scanbody discrepancy between original implants and lab analogues was statistically significant (p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). Scanbody discrepancy was higher on original implants than on lab analogues. Fit and reproducibility of the scanbodies on original implants should be improved to achieve higher accuracy of implant-supported CAD/CAM fabricated restorations.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Assuncao WG, Filho HG, Zaniquelli O (2004) Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent 13:358–366PubMed Assuncao WG, Filho HG, Zaniquelli O (2004) Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent 13:358–366PubMed
2.
go back to reference Carr AB (1991) Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:448–455PubMed Carr AB (1991) Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:448–455PubMed
3.
go back to reference Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR (1999) Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 81:7–13PubMedCrossRef Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR (1999) Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 81:7–13PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Balshi TJ (1996) An analysis and management of fractured implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:660–666PubMed Balshi TJ (1996) An analysis and management of fractured implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:660–666PubMed
5.
go back to reference Burguete RL, Johns RB, King T, Patterson EA (1994) Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 71:592–599PubMedCrossRef Burguete RL, Johns RB, King T, Patterson EA (1994) Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 71:592–599PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK (2000) Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:662–667PubMed Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK (2000) Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:662–667PubMed
7.
go back to reference Jemt T, Rubenstein JE, Carlsson L, Lang BR (1996) Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthet Dent 75:314–325PubMedCrossRef Jemt T, Rubenstein JE, Carlsson L, Lang BR (1996) Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthet Dent 75:314–325PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Sahin S, Cehreli MC (2001) The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 10:85–92PubMedCrossRef Sahin S, Cehreli MC (2001) The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 10:85–92PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Wee AG, Aquilino SA, Schneider RL (1999) Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 12:167–178PubMed Wee AG, Aquilino SA, Schneider RL (1999) Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 12:167–178PubMed
10.
go back to reference Augthun M, Conrads G (1997) Microbial findings of deep peri-implant bone defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:106–112PubMed Augthun M, Conrads G (1997) Microbial findings of deep peri-implant bone defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:106–112PubMed
11.
go back to reference Leonhardt A, Renvert S, Dahlen G (1999) Microbial findings at failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 10:339–345PubMedCrossRef Leonhardt A, Renvert S, Dahlen G (1999) Microbial findings at failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 10:339–345PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lindhe J, Berglundh T, Ericsson I, Liljenberg B, Marinello C (1992) Experimental breakdown of peri-implant and periodontal tissues. A study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 3:9–16PubMedCrossRef Lindhe J, Berglundh T, Ericsson I, Liljenberg B, Marinello C (1992) Experimental breakdown of peri-implant and periodontal tissues. A study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 3:9–16PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Binon PP, McHugh MJ (1996) The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 9:511–519PubMed Binon PP, McHugh MJ (1996) The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 9:511–519PubMed
14.
go back to reference Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM (2004) In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:30–37PubMed Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM (2004) In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:30–37PubMed
15.
go back to reference Al-Bakri IA, Hussey D, Al-Omari WM (2007) The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials. J Clin Dent 18:29–33PubMed Al-Bakri IA, Hussey D, Al-Omari WM (2007) The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials. J Clin Dent 18:29–33PubMed
16.
go back to reference Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C (2008) The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 100:285–291PubMedCrossRef Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C (2008) The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 100:285–291PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763PubMed Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763PubMed
18.
go back to reference Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2008) Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204:505–511PubMedCrossRef Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2008) Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204:505–511PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Quaas S, Koch R, Rudolph H (2010) Comparison of the three-dimensional correctness of impression techniques: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 41:845–853PubMed Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Quaas S, Koch R, Rudolph H (2010) Comparison of the three-dimensional correctness of impression techniques: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 41:845–853PubMed
20.
go back to reference Del Corso M, Aba G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J, Dohan Ehrenfest DM (2009) Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 11:214–221PubMedCrossRef Del Corso M, Aba G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J, Dohan Ehrenfest DM (2009) Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 11:214–221PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28PubMed Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28PubMed
22.
go back to reference Masek R (2005) Margin isolation for optical impressions and adhesion. Int J Comput Dent 8:69–76PubMed Masek R (2005) Margin isolation for optical impressions and adhesion. Int J Comput Dent 8:69–76PubMed
23.
go back to reference Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE (1997) Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:371–375PubMed Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE (1997) Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:371–375PubMed
24.
go back to reference Semper W, Kraft S, Kruger T, Nelson K (2009) Theoretical considerations: implant positional index design. J Dent Res 88:725–730PubMedCrossRef Semper W, Kraft S, Kruger T, Nelson K (2009) Theoretical considerations: implant positional index design. J Dent Res 88:725–730PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Binon PP (2000) Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:76–94PubMed Binon PP (2000) Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:76–94PubMed
26.
go back to reference Semper W, Kraft S, Kruger T, Nelson K (2009) Theoretical optimum of implant positional index design. J Dent Res 88:731–735PubMedCrossRef Semper W, Kraft S, Kruger T, Nelson K (2009) Theoretical optimum of implant positional index design. J Dent Res 88:731–735PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Semper W, Kraft S, Mehrhof J, Nelson K (2010) Impact of abutment rotation and angulation on marginal fit: theoretical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25:752–758PubMed Semper W, Kraft S, Mehrhof J, Nelson K (2010) Impact of abutment rotation and angulation on marginal fit: theoretical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25:752–758PubMed
28.
go back to reference Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294PubMed Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294PubMed
Metadata
Title
Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study
Authors
Michael Stimmelmayr
Jan-Frederik Güth
Kurt Erdelt
Daniel Edelhoff
Florian Beuer
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Clinical Oral Investigations 3/2012 Go to the issue