Top

BMC Oral Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Research

Positional transfer accuracy of titanium base implant abutment provided by two different scan body designs: an invitro study

Authors: Rania E. Ramadan, Mahmoud Khamis Abdel Razek, Faten S. Mohamed, Rania A. Fahmy, Mervat E. Abd-Ellah

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Background

The variabilities in design and material of scan bodies have a major role in the positional transfer accuracy of implants. The purpose of this invitro study was to compare the 3D transfer accuracy (trueness and precision) of titanium base (TB) abutment position provided by 2 different scan bodies: one-piece scan body (SB) in comparison to two-piece healing abutment and scan peg (HA-SP).

Methods

A maxillary model with a dummy implant in the 2nd premolar (Proactive Tapered Implant; Neoss) was 3D printed and TB (Ti Neolink Mono; Neoss) was tightened on the implant and scanned by using a laboratory scanner (inEos X5; Dentsply Sirona) (reference scan). An SB (Elos Medtech) and an HA-SP (Neoss) were subsequently connected to the implant and were scanned 10 times each by using the same scanner (test scans). All the scans were exported as STL files and imported into CAD software where the TBs were formed. Test scans were superimposed on reference scans for transfer accuracy analysis using 3D metrology software (GOM Inspect; GOM GmbH) in terms of angular deviation in vertical and horizontal directions, linear deviation in each XYZ axis of TBs and total linear deviation in all axes. Statistical analysis was done using independent sample t test. When Levene’s test for equality of variances was significant, Welch’s t-test was used. (P value < 0.05)

Results

Significant differences were found amongst the tested groups in both angular and linear deviation in terms of trueness with less deviation values for the SB group (P < 0.001). For the precision, significant differences were found amongst the tested groups in angular deviation in vertical direction with less deviation value for the SB group compared to HA-SP group (P < 0.001). However, no significant difference was found between the tested groups regarding the angular deviation in horizontal direction (P = 1.000). Moreover, significant differences were found amongst the tested groups in linear deviations with less linear deviations in XYZ axes for SB compared to HA-SP group (P = 0.020, < 0.001, = 0.010 respectively).

Conclusions

SB showed less angular and linear deviation values in the 3D positional transfer of TB than HA-SP indicating higher degree of accuracy of SB.

Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29:374–92.CrossRefPubMed

Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:343–52.CrossRefPubMed

Rutkunas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, Vaitiekunas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10:101–20.PubMed

Schmidt A, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33:573–85.CrossRefPubMed

Schmidt A, Billig JW, Schlenz MA, Wöstmann B. The influence of using different types of scan bodies on the transfer accuracy of Implant position: an in Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34:254–60.CrossRefPubMed

Schmidt A, Billig JW, Schlenz MA, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Influence of the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanbodies on Implant position: differences in Manufacturing Tolerances. Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32:430–2.CrossRefPubMed

Revilla-León M, Smith Z, Methani MM, Zandinejad A, Özcan M. Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125:918–23.CrossRefPubMed

Amin S, Weber HP, Finkelman M, El Rafie K, Kudara Y, Papaspyridakos P. Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;28:1360–7.CrossRefPubMed

Papaspyridakos P, Gallucci GO, Chen CJ, Hanssen S, Naert I, Vandenberghe B. Digital versus conventional implant impressions for edentulous patients: accuracy outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016;27:465–72.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Aktas G, Özcan N, Aydin DH, Şahin E, Akça K. Effect of digitizing techniques on the fit of implant-retained crowns with different antirotational abutment features. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111:367–72.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Stimmelmayr M, Güth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:851–6.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Lee SJ, Gallucci GO. Digital vs. conventional implant impressions: efficiency outcomes. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013;24:111–5.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Gracis S, Appiani A, Noè G. Digital workflow in implant prosthodontics: the critical aspects for reliable accuracy. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35:250–61.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Holst S, Persson A, Wichmann M, Karl M. Digitizing implant position locators on master casts: comparison of a noncontact scanner and a contact-probe scanner. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2012;27:29–35.PubMed

15.

Çakmak G, Donmez MB, Atalay S, Yilmaz H, Kökat AM, Yilmaz B. Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2021;113:103773.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Yilmaz B, Gouveia D, Marques VR, Diker E, Schimmel M, Abou-Ayash S. The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2021;110:103684.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Atalay S, Çakmak G, Donmez MB, Yilmaz H, Kökat AM, Yilmaz B. Effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans using a combined healing abutment-scan body system. J Dent. 2021;115:103855.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Donmez MB, Marques VR, Çakmak G, Yilmaz H, Schimmel M, Yilmaz B. Congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file: an in vitro analysis. J Dent. 2022;118:103938.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S. A digital intraoral implant scan technique using a combined healing abutment and scan body system. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:206–9.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Kuhr F, Schmidt A, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. A new method for assessing the accuracy of full arch impressions in patients. J Dent. 2016;55:68–74.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Schmidt A, Rein PE, Wöstmann B, Schlenz MA. A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key-based method. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32:460–9.CrossRefPubMed

22.

International Organization for Standardization. Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results d part 1: General principles and definitions. ISO; 1994.

23.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Ender A, Mehl A. Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;109:121–8.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Knechtle N, Wiedemeier D, Mehl A, Ender A. Accuracy of digital complete-arch, multi-implant scans made in the edentulous jaw with gingival movement simulation: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128:468–78.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Hamm J, Berndt EU, Beuer F, Zachriat C. Evaluation of model materials for CAD/CAM in vitro studies. Int J Comput Dent. 2020;23:49–56.PubMed

27.

Mizumoto RM, Alp G, Özcan M, Yilmaz B. The effect of scanning the palate and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch implant scans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2019;21:987–94.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Alhossaini SJ, Neena AF, Issa NO, Abouelkheir HM, Gaweesh YY. Accuracy of markerless registration methods of DICOM and STL files used for computerized surgical guides in mandibles with metal restorations: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2022:S0022-3913(22)00636-9.

29.

Papaspyridakos P, Benic GI, Hogsett VL, White GS, Lal K, Gallucci GO. Accuracy of implant casts generated with splinted and non-splinted impression techniques for edentulous patients: an optical scanning study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012;23:676–81.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Çakmak G, Yilmaz H, Treviño A, Kökat AM, Yilmaz B. The effect of scanner type and scan body position on the accuracy of complete-arch digital implant scans. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22:533–41.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Emir F, Ayyıldız S. Evaluation of the trueness and precision of eight extraoral laboratory scanners with a complete-arch model: a three-dimensional analysis. J Prosthodont Res. 2019;63:434–9.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Keul C, Güth JF. Accuracy of full-arch digital impressions: an in vitro and in vivo comparison. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:735–45.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Pacquet W, Tapie L, Mawussi B, Boitelle P. Volumetric and dimensional accuracy assessment of CAD-CAM-manufactured dental prostheses from different materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:150–9.CrossRefPubMed

34.

O’Toole S, Osnes C, Bartlett D, Keeling A. Investigation into the accuracy and measurement methods of sequential 3D dental scan alignment. Dent Mater. 2019;35:495–500.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Lerner H, Nagy K, Luongo F, Luongo G, Admakin O, Mangano FG. Tolerances in the production of six different implant scanbodies: a comparative study. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34:591–9.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy EA Jr, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:96–104.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Yilmaz B, Rizzo Marques V, Guo X, Gouveia D, Abou-Ayash S. The effect of scanned area on the accuracy and time of anterior single implant scans: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2021;109:103620.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Positional transfer accuracy of titanium base implant abutment provided by two different scan body designs: an invitro study
Authors: Rania E. Ramadan
Mahmoud Khamis Abdel Razek
Faten S. Mohamed
Rania A. Fahmy
Mervat E. Abd-Ellah
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03399-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Positional transfer accuracy of titanium base implant abutment provided by two different scan body designs: an invitro study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Oral health knowledge is associated with oral health-related quality of life: a survey of first-year undergraduate students enrolled in an American university

Reparative dentin formation as a possible factor influencing the penetrability of dentin in human teeth with apical periodontitis: an ex vivo study

Health insurance is associated with dental care use among university students in Washington State

Machine learning in the detection of dental cyst, tumor, and abscess lesions

Volumetric evaluation of effects of platelet-rich fibrin and concentrated growth factor on early bone healing after endodontic microsurgery: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical correlation of salivary alpha-amylase levels with pain intensity in patients undergoing emergency endodontic treatment