Influence of scanbody design and intraoral scanner on the trueness of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions using seven different scanbodies and four intraoral scanners. A 3D-printed maxillary model with six implants and their respective multi-unit abutments was used for this study. Seven scanbodies (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB4, SB5,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:PloS one 2023-12, Vol.18 (12), p.e0295790-e0295790
Main Authors: Meneghetti, Priscila Ceolin, Li, Junying, Borella, Paulo Sérgio, Mendonça, Gustavo, Burnett, Jr, Luiz Henrique
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
3-D printers
Accuracy
Analysis
Biology and Life Sciences
Clinical outcomes
Computer and Information Sciences
Dental prosthetics
Dentistry
Deviation
Digitization
Electronic components industry
Engineering and Technology
Forecasts and trends
Implants
Innovations
International economic relations
Medicine and Health Sciences
People and places
Pilot projects
Research and Analysis Methods
Reverse engineering
Scanners
Software
Statistical analysis
Technology application
Transplants & implants
Ultraviolet radiation
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study aimed to compare the accuracy of full-arch digital implant impressions using seven different scanbodies and four intraoral scanners. A 3D-printed maxillary model with six implants and their respective multi-unit abutments was used for this study. Seven scanbodies (SB1, SB2, SB3, SB4, SB5, SB6, and SB7) and four intraoral scanners (Primescan®, Omnican®, Trios 3®, and Trios 4®) were assessed. Each combination group was scanned ten times and a dental lab scanner (D2000, 3Shape) was used as a reference. All scans were exported as STL files, imported into Convince software (3Shape) for alignment, and later into Blender software, where their 3D positions were analyzed using a Python script. The 3D deviation, angular deviation, and linear distance between implants #3 and #14 were also measured. Accuracy was measured in terms of "trueness" (scanbody 3D deviation between intraoral scan and desktop scan). Kruskal-Wallis followed by the Bonferroni correction was used to analyze the data (⍺ = .05). The study found statistically significant differences in digital impression accuracy among the scanners and scanbodies (p
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0295790