In vitro scan accuracy and time efficiency in various implant-supported fixed partial denture situations

Samir Abou-Ayash; Amber Mathey; Fabio Gäumann; Ayse Mathey; Mustafa Borga Donmez; Burak Yilmaz

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104358

In vitro scan accuracy and time efficiency in various implant-supported fixed partial denture situations

J Dent. 2022 Dec:127:104358. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104358. Epub 2022 Nov 8.

Authors

Samir Abou-Ayash¹, Amber Mathey², Fabio Gäumann², Ayse Mathey², Mustafa Borga Donmez³, Burak Yilmaz⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: samir.abou-ayash@unibe.ch.
² Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
³ Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey.
⁴ Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Restorative, Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3007 Bern, Switzerland; Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.

PMID: 36356837
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104358

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the accuracy and time efficiency of different digital workflows in 3 implant-supported fixed partial denture situations.

Methods: Three partially edentulous maxillary models with 2 implants (Model 1: implants at lateral incisor sites; Model 2: implants at right canine and first molar sites; Model 3: implants at right first premolar and first molar sites) were digitized (ATOS Capsule 200MV120, n=1) for reference scans. Test scans were performed for direct (Primescan (DDW-P) and Trios 3 (DDW-T)) and indirect (IDW) digital workflows (n=14). For IDW, stone casts (type IV) were obtained from vinylsiloxanether impressions and digitized (S600 Arti). The scan/impression and post processing times were recorded. Reference and test scans were superimposed (GOM Inspect) to calculate 3D point, inter-implant distance, and angular deviations. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for trueness and precision analyses (α=.05).

Results: Tested workflows affected trueness (P≤.030) and precision (P<.001) of scans (3D point, inter-implant distance, and angular deviations) within models. DDW-P had the highest accuracy (3D point deviations) for models 1 and 3 (P≤.046). IDW had the lowest accuracy for model 2 (P<.01). DDW-P had the highest accuracy (inter-implant distance deviations) for model 3 (P≤.048). Direct digital workflow mostly led to lower angular deviations (P≤.040), and higher precision for models 2 (mesiodistal direction) and 3 (P<.001). The time for direct digital workflow was shorter (P<.001), DDW-P being more efficient than DDW-T (P=.008).

Conclusion: Direct digital workflow was more accurate and efficient than indirect digital workflow in tested partial edentulism situations with 2 implants.

Clinical significance: Tested intraoral scanners can be recommended for accurate and efficient impressions of anterior and posterior 3- or 4-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures.

Keywords: Digital workflow; Partial edentulism; Precision; Time efficiency; Trueness.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Computer-Aided Design
Dental Implants*
Dental Impression Technique*
Denture, Partial, Fixed
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Models, Dental

Substances

Dental Implants