Abstract
This study investigated the trueness of a digital implant impression according to the orientation of the implant scan body (ISB) and the scanning method. With the flat surface of the ISB facing either the buccal or proximal direction, the ISB was scanned using one tabletop scanner (T500) and three types of intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, CS3600, and i500). The effects of differences in the scanning method and ISB orientation were assessed. Postalignment data were subsequently obtained with the abutments generated using a digital library, and superimposed with reference data using a best-fit algorithm, followed by root-mean-square error (RMSE) analysis. The RMSE was lower in the buccal groups (28.15 ± 8.87 μm, mean ± SD) than in the proximal groups (31.94 ± 8.95 μm, p = 0.031), and lower in the full-scan groups (27.92 ± 10.80 μm) than in the partial-scan groups (32.16 ± 6.35 μm, p = 0.016). When using the tabletop scanner, the trueness was higher when the ISB was connected buccally (14.34 ± 0.89 μm) than when it was connected proximally (29.35 ± 1.15 μm, p < 0.001). From the findings of this study it can be concluded that the operator should connect the ISB so that its flat surface faces the buccal direction, and attempt to scan all areas. Additionally, it is advantageous to connect an ISB buccally when using a tabletop scanner.
Highlights
Manufacturing an accurate dental prosthesis requires an accurate impression to be obtained
The purpose of the present study was to compare the trueness of digital implant impressions in a single implant case according to two variables: the implant scan body (ISB) orientation and the scanning method
The overall root-mean-square error (RMSE) according to the ISB orientation and scanning methods was lower in the buccal groups (67.50 ± 18.56 μm) than in the proximal groups (82.80 ± 16.73 μm), and lower in the full-scan groups (64.05 ± 14.74 μm) than in the partial-scan groups (86.24 ± 16.59 μm)
Summary
Manufacturing an accurate dental prosthesis requires an accurate impression to be obtained. Precision impression materials, such as polyether and polyvinyl siloxane, have traditionally been used to fabricate fixed prostheses, and these have been selected by many clinicians for decades due to their excellent volume stability and precision [1]. The dimensional stability of the impression materials is affected by the temperature, the time taken to make a model after taking the impression, the surface wettability of the gypsum, and the disinfection process [2,3,4,5,6]. Errors on the occlusal and proximal sides of the resulting implant crown may occur, possibly lengthening the operating time for repairing the prosthesis or causing discomfort to the patient, or even requiring remanufacturing [8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
