scholarly journals Accuracy of Proximal and Occlusal Contacts of Single Implant Crowns Fabricated Using Different Digital Scan Methods: An In Vitro Study

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (11) ◽  
pp. 2843
Author(s):  
Xi Ren ◽  
Keunbada Son ◽  
Kyu-Bok Lee
Keyword(s):  
Reference Model ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Data Capture ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Occlusal Contact ◽  
Stl File ◽  
Contact Points ◽  
Direct Data ◽  
Single Implant

The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of the proximal and occlusal contacts of single implant crowns fabricated with four data capture methods. The resin models were mounted on an articulator, digitized using a laboratory scanner, and saved as a standard tessellation language (STL) file to serve as the master reference model (MRM). Two different intraoral scan body (ISB) systems were evaluated: polyetheretherketone (PEEK) short scan body (SSB) and PEEK long scan body (LSB) (n = 12). The digital impressions (SSB and LSB) were acquired using an intraoral scanner with ISB. Two different conventional techniques were also evaluated: PEEK short scan body with coping plastic cap (CPC) and pick-up coping (PUC) (n = 12). The implant impressions (CPC and PUC) were recorded using a conventional impression technique. The crown and abutment were fabricated with a milling machine and then placed on the resin model and scanned using a laboratory scanner. The scanned files were saved as STL files to serve as test datasets. The MRM and test datasets were superimposed, and the mesial, distal, and occlusal distances were calculated using a 3D inspection software and statistically analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis H test (α = 0.05). The direct data capture group had more accurate contact points on the three surfaces, with mesial contact of 64.7 (12.8) µm followed by distal contact of 65.4 (15) µm and occlusal contact of 147 (35.8) µm in the SSB group, and mesial contact of 84.9 (22.6) µm followed by distal contact of 69.5 (19.2) µm and occlusal contact of 115.9 (27.7) µm in the LSB group (p < 0.001). The direct data capture groups are closer to the ideal proximal and occlusal contacts for single implant crowns than the indirect data capture groups. There was no difference in the accuracy between the two types of scan body (SSB and LSB).

scholarly journals 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

2021 ◽  
pp. 103684
Author(s):  
Burak Yilmaz ◽  
Diogo Gouveia ◽  
Vinicius Rizzo Marques ◽  
Emre Diker ◽  
Martin Schimmel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Single Implant

scholarly journals Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression: a comparative in vitro study

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Guido Mangano ◽  
Oleg Admakin ◽  
Matteo Bonacina ◽  
Henriette Lerner ◽  
Vygandas Rutkunas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Statistical Evaluation ◽  
Reference Model ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Engineering Software ◽  
Mean Error ◽  
Mesh Method ◽  
Cast Model ◽  
Different Levels

Abstract Background The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression. Methods A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed. Results With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation. Conclusions Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Evaluation of Accuracy of Casts of Multiple Internal Connection Implant Prosthesis Obtained From Different Impression Materials and Techniques: An In Vitro Study

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malesh Pujari ◽  
Pooja Garg ◽  
D. R. Prithviraj
Keyword(s):  
Reference Model ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Impression Material ◽  
Internal Connection ◽  
Impression Materials ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Multiple Comparison Procedures

Movement of impression copings inside the impression material using a direct (open tray) impression technique during clinical and laboratory phases may cause inaccuracy in transferring the 3-dimensional spatial orientation of implants intraorally to the cast. Consequently, the prosthesis may require corrective procedures. This in vitro study evaluated the accuracy of 3 different impression techniques using polyether and vinyl polysiloxane (VPS) impression material to obtain a precise cast for multiple internal connection implants. A reference acrylic resin model with 4 internal connection implants was fabricated. Impressions of the reference model were made using 3 different techniques and 2 different impression materials. The study consisted of 24 specimens divided into 6 groups of 4 each. Impressions were poured with ADA type IV stone (Kalrock, Kalabhai Karson Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, India). All casts were evaluated for the positional accuracy (mm) of the implant replica heads using a profile projector. These measurements were compared to the measurements calculated on the reference resin model, which served as a control. Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni multiple comparison procedures to evaluate group means. The results revealed significant difference for anterior implant distance between the 2 impression materials (P &lt; .01) and also among the 3 different techniques (P &lt; .05). The lowest mean variation was found with the polyether impression material and the splinted technique. For posterior implants, the results suggested no significant difference between the 2 impression materials (P ≥ .05). Although results were not statistically significant, the polyether impression material showed the lowest mean variation as compared to the VPS impression material. However, there was a significant difference among the 3 different techniques (P &lt; .05). Among the 3 different techniques, the lowest mean variation between 2 posterior implants was found in the splinted technique. Casts obtained from impression techniques using square impression copings splinted together with autopolymerizing acrylic resin prior to the impression procedure were more accurate than casts obtained from impressions with nonmodified implant impression copings and with airborne particle–abraded, adhesive-coated copings. Casts obtained from polyether impression material were more accurate than casts obtained from vinyl polysiloxane impression material.

scholarly journals Assessment of the Different Types of Failure on Anterior Cantilever Resin-Bonded Fixed Dental Prostheses Fabricated with Three Different Materials: An In Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 4151
Author(s):  
Adolfo Di Fiore ◽  
Edoardo Stellini ◽  
Gianpaolo Savio ◽  
Stefano Rosso ◽  
Lorenzo Graiff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Load Resistance ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Stl File ◽  
Fixed Dental Prosthesis ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Ceramic Fillers

background: resin-bonded fixed dental prosthesis (RBFDP) represents a highly aesthetic and conservative treatment option to replace a single tooth in a younger patient. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the fracture strength and the different types of failure on anterior cantilever RBFDPs fabricated using zirconia (ZR), lithium disilicate (LD), and PMMA-based material with ceramic fillers (PM) by the same standard tessellation language (STL) file. Methods: sixty extracted bovine mandibular incisives were embedded resin block; scanned to design one master model of RBFDP with a cantilevered single-retainer. Twenty cantilevered single-retainer RBFDPs were fabricated using ZR; LD; and PM. Static loading was performed using a universal testing machine. Results: the mean fracture strength for the RBFDPs was: 292.5 Newton (Standard Deviation (SD) 36.6) for ZR; 210 N (SD 37.6) for LD; and 133 N (SD 16.3) for PM. All the failures of RBFDPs in ZR were a fracture of the abutment tooth; instead; the 80% of failures of RBFDPs in LD and PM were a fracture of the connector. Conclusion: within the limitations of this in vitro study, we can conclude that the zirconia RBFDPs presented load resistance higher than the maximum anterior bite force reported in literature (270 N) and failure type analysis showed some trends among the groups

scholarly journals The effect of scanned area on the accuracy and time of anterior single implant scans: an in vitro study

2021 ◽  
pp. 103620
Author(s):  
Burak Yilmaz ◽  
Vinicius Rizzo-Marques ◽  
Xiaohan Guo ◽  
Diogo Gouveia ◽  
Samir Abou-Ayash
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Single Implant

scholarly journals Complete-Arch Accuracy of Four Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 246
Author(s):  
Giordano Celeghin ◽  
Giulio Franceschetti ◽  
Nicola Mobilio ◽  
Alberto Fasiol ◽  
Santo Catapano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Reference Model ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Dental Arch ◽  
Arch Model ◽  
Linear Measurements ◽  
Stl File ◽  
Digital Reference ◽  
Digital Impressions

The purpose of this study is to define the accuracy of four intraoral scanners (IOS) through the analysis of digital impressions of a complete dental arch model. Eight metal inserts were placed on the model as reference points and then it was scanned with a laboratory scanner in order to obtain the reference model. Subsequently, the reference model was scanned with four IOS (Carestream 3600, CEREC Omnicam, True Definition Scanner, Trios 3Shape). Linear measurements were traced on an STL file between the chosen reference points and divided into four categories: three-element mesiodistal, five-element mesiodistal, diagonal, and contralateral measurements. The digital reference values for the measurements were then compared with the values obtained from the scans to analyze the accuracy of the IOS using ANOVA. There were no statistically significant differences between the measurements of the digital scans obtained with the four IOS systems for any of the measurement groups tested.

scholarly journals Comparison of the virtual techniques in registering single implant position with a universal-coordinate system: An in vitro study

2021 ◽  
pp. 103925
Author(s):  
Yu Pan ◽  
Caiyun Heng ◽  
Zhi-Jie Wu ◽  
Juliana Tam ◽  
Richard TC Hsung ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coordinate System ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Implant Position ◽  
Single Implant
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document