IADR Abstract Archives

The Accuracy of Various Digital Impression for Completed-Arch Implant-Supported Prostheses.

Objectives:
To compare the accuracy between three different intraoral scanners for 5 implants placed in completely edentulous arches.
Methods: An edentulous mandibular cast was prepared with 3 straight and two 17-degree angled screw-retained abutments screwed on implants. Three different digital techniques were compared: TS (Trios4, 3shape, Denmark), IT (iTero, Align Technology Inc, USA), and PS (Primescan, Sirona, Germany) (n=5). An extraoral scanner (E4 scanner, 3shape, Denmark) was used to digitize the reference model to compare each intraoral scan position in terms of 3D deviation by using a 3-dimensional analysis software program (Geomagic ControlX 2020.; 3D System) and best fit alignment technique. Normal distribution and equality of variance are tested with Shapiro-Wilk and Levene's test. Differences in accuracy between each group area are analyzed by using one-way ANOVA followed by post-hoc comparison test for trueness and Kruskal Wallis test followed by pairwise comparison for precision. (α = 0.05)
Results: Statistically 3-D deviations of whole scan body were found among the TS, PS, and IT group for both trueness (P<0.05) and precision (P<0.05). TS showed the least 3D deviation of trueness (52.1 ± 3.8 μm) and precision (19.4 ± 3.6 μm) followed by PS and IT. The highest 3-D deviation was found in the position of right premolar (Trueness= 85.1 ± 12.1 μm, Precision 55 ± 32 μm).
Conclusions: Completed-arch digital implant impression using Trios-4 scanner was significantly more accurate than others. Highest 3-D deviations were found in the right premolar position in all groups.

2021 South East Asian Division Meeting (Hong Kong)
Hong Kong
2021
068
Dental Materials 6: Instruments and Equipment
  • Kosago, Pitchaporn  ( Prince of Songkla University , Hatyai , Songkhla , Thailand )
  • Ungurawasaporn, Chatcharwin  ( Prince of Songkla University , Hatyai , Songkhla , Thailand )
  • Kukiattreakoon, Prof. Boonlert  ( Prince of Songkla University , Hatyai , Songkhla , Thailand )
    • NONE
    Oral Session
    Dental materials and biomaterials III
    Wednesday, 12/08/2021 , 03:15PM - 04:45PM
    Table 1. Trueness of whole scan body between different intraoral scanner in terms of RMS 3D deviation
    Scan bodiesPrimescan (N=5)Trios4 (N=5)iTero (N=5)P-value
    Whole scan body0.0572 ± 0.0021 (a)0.0521 ± 0.0038 (a)0.0677 ± 0.0072 (b)0.001
    Left premolar0.0548 ± 0.0034 (a)0.0556 ± 0.0049 (a)0.0675 ± 0.0069 (b)0.004
    Left canine0.0531 ± 0.005 (a, b)0.0447 ± 0.0037 (a)0.0597 ± 0.0074 (b)0.004
    Central incisor0.05 ± 0.0091 (a, b)0.0359 ± 0.0043 (a)0.0635 ± 0.0141 (b)0.003
    Right canine0.0577 ± 0.0093 (a, b)0.0431 ± 0.0049 (a)0.0582 ± 0.0102 (b)0.025
    Right premolar0.0671 ± 0.0051 (a)0.0734 ± 0.0106 (a, b)0.0851 ± 0.0121 (b)0.036
    Different letters indicate significant difference between different intraoral scanners from pos hoc test (P<0.05)
    Table 2. Precision of whole scan body between different intraoral scanner in terms of RMS 3D deviation
    Scan bodies

    		Primescan (N=5)Trios4 (N=5)iTero (N=5)P-value
    Whole scan body0.0228 ± 0.008 (b)0.0194 ± 0.0036 (a)0.0368 ± 0.0126 (b)0.002
    Left premolar 0.0282 ± 0.0135 (a, b)0.0188 ± 0.0054 (a)0.0369 ± 0.1588 (b)0.027
    Left canine0.0297 ± 0.0117 (a)0.0178 ± 0.0064 (b)0.0213 ± 0.0046 (a, b)0.011
    Central incisor0.0235 ± 0.0087 (b)0.0153 ± 0.0024 (a)0.0247 ± 0.0112 (b)0.029
    Right canine0.02292 ± 0.009 (b)0.014 ± 0.002 (a)0.02909 ± 0.016 (b)0.015
    Right premolar0.0391 ± 0.0092 (b)0.0264 ± 0.008 (a)0.055 ± 0.032 (b)0.021
    Different letters indicate significant difference between different intraoral scanners from Pairwise comparison (P<0.05)