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

Abstract

PurposeTo compare the accuracy of polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions and intraoral scans when a healing abutment-scanpeg system (HASP) or a conventional scanbody (CSB) was used on a single implant. Materials and methodsA maxillary model with an implant (4.0 × 11 mm) (Neoss) and a CSB or an HASP (Neoss) was scanned by using a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600; Amann Girrbach) (reference scans) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 3) (n = 10). PVS open-tray impressions were also made and stone casts of the model with a CSB were digitized with the laboratory scanner. Intraoral scanner and cast scans were superimposed to their reference scans. On superimposed scans, points were selected on HASP and CSB to calculate distance deviations (at points 1–4) and angular deviations (at points 5 and 6 on CSB and PVS, and 5–8 on HASP) between scans (trueness), and their variation (precision). The deviation data was analyzed with ANOVA and pairwise comparisons (trueness) with Tukey's adjustment, and F-tests (precision). ResultsAt point 1, PVS had lower trueness than CSB (difference in means (DIMs) = 0.184 mm, p = 0.006) and HASP (DIMs = 0.122 mm, p = 0.042). At point 3, CSB had higher trueness than HASP (DIMs = 0.134 mm, p = 0.001). Angular deviations with PVS were higher than with CSB (DIMs = 0.6°, p = 0.013) and HASP (DIMs = 0.7°, p = 0.005). CSB had higher precision than PVS (p < 0.05). HASP had higher precision than PVS for distance (Point 1)(p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p < 0.05). Deviation differences within the HASP parts were not significant. ConclusionThe accuracy of intraoral scans and PVS impressions of an implant was similar. Clinical relevanceThe combined healing abutment-scanpeg system and the conventional scanbody can be recommended for scans of anterior single implants with the intraoral scanner used.