Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: An in vitro study. (October 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Çakmak, Gülce; Donmez, Mustafa Borga; Atalay, Sevda; Yilmaz, Hakan; Kökat, Ali Murat; Yilmaz, Burak
• Is Part Of: Journal of dentistry. Volume 113(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-10
• Subjects: Accuracy -- Healing abutment-scan body -- Intraoral scanner -- Precision -- Trueness; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentisterie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103773
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-5712

Abstract

Highlights: The IOSs did not affect the distance deviations (trueness and precision) of the single implant scans using the CHA-SB system. The angular deviations of the single implant scans using the CHA-SB system was significantly affected by the IOSs. VirtuoVivo presented the highest angular deviation values. Abstract: Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system using different intraoral scanners. Methods: A partially edentulous model with an implant was fabricated, and a CHA-SB system was secured on the implant. The model was scanned using an industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80) and a master reference model was generated (MRM). The model was also scanned with 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [(Virtuo Vivo (VV), TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (CO), and Primescan (PS)]. Test scans ( n = 8) were superimposed over the MRM using the best fit algorithm (GOM Inspect 2018; GOM GmbH). After superimpositions, distance and angular deviations at selected areas on CHA-SB system were calculated. The data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests for trueness and precision (α=0.05). Results: The differences in trueness (distance deviations) among tested IOSs were nonsignificant ( P =.652). VV presented the highest angular deviations ( P ≤.031), and the angular deviations in other IOS scans were not found different ( P ≥.378). The precision of distance deviation data was not significantly different among scanners ( P =.052). For the precision of angular deviation data, significant differences were found among IOSs ( P =.002). Compared with PS ( P =.007) and T3 ( P =.014), VV had significantly lower precision, which was not significantly different than that of CO ( P =.815). Conclusions: The accuracy (angular deviation) of scans of a combined healing abutment-scan body system on a single implant varied depending on the IOS. VirtuoVivo scans had the lowest accuracy in terms of angular deviations. When the distance deviation data were considered, scan accuracy of scanners was similar. Clinical Significance: A recently introduced combined healing abutment-scan body system combines the acquisition of both the implant and the soft tissue. When different intraoral scanners scan the combined healing abutment-scan body system, the scan accuracy may vary.