Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment-scan body system depending on the scan pattern and implant location: An in-vitro study. (September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Donmez, Mustafa Borga; Çakmak, Gülce; Atalay, Sevda; Yilmaz, Hakan; Yilmaz, Burak
• Is Part Of: Journal of dentistry. Volume 124(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-09
• Subjects: Accuracy -- Combined healing abutment-scan body -- Implant position -- Scan pattern; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dentisterie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 617.6005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104169
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0300-5712

Abstract

Highlights: Scan pattern and implant location affected scan accuracy. Greater scan area and complex movements resulted in higher deviations. Implant located at central incisor site showed the highest trueness. Abstract: Objective: To test the effect of scan pattern and the location of the implant on the trueness and precision of implant scans when the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system is used. Material and methods: A partially edentulous maxillary model with CHA-SBs secured on implants at 3 different sites in the left quadrant (central incisor, first premolar, and first molar) was fabricated. The model was scanned with an industrial light scanner to generate a master reference model (MRM) file. An intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) was used to perform the test scans ( n = 8) with 4 different scan patterns (SP1, SP2, SP3, and SP4) with an intraoral scanner. The test scans were superimposed over the MRM file with a metrology software to calculate the distance deviations of the CHA-SB system. Data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests for accuracy (α = .05). Results: Trueness ( P = .001) and precision ( P = .018) were significantly affected by the interaction between the scan pattern and implant location. The implant located at the central incisor site (56.7 ± 35.9, 36.2 ± 18.6) had higher trueness than that of located at the premolar site (94.1 ± 20.4, 100.3 ± 20) when SP2 ( P = .037) and SP4 (P = .002) were used. The implant at the molar site (71.9 ± 25.7, 147.2 ± 49.7) had trueness either similar to (when SP2 was used, P ≥ .276) or lower than (when SP4 was used, P ≤ .024) those of others. Scans of the central incisor and premolar implants had the lowest trueness when scanned with SP1 ( P ≤ .009), while the scans of molar implant showed higher trueness when performed by using SP2 and SP3 when compared with SP4 ( P ≤ .005). When SP4 was used, the implant at the molar site had lower precision (43 ± 18.9) than the implants located at the central incisor (14.1 ± 11) and premolar sites (15.4 ± 11.3) ( P = .002). Scan patterns affected the scan precision of central incisor implant ( P = .009), as SP4 (14.1 ± 11) led to a higher precision than SP1 (47.7 ± 27) ( P = .006). Conclusions: The scan accuracy of combined healing abutment-scan body system was affected by scan pattern and implant location. SP1, which involved palatal and rotational scans resulted in the lowest trueness for central incisor and premolar implants, while the scans of the central incisor implant showed the highest trueness among different sites when SP4 was used. However, the scan pattern and implant site had a minor effect on precision. Scan precision at different implant sites only differed when SP4 was used, which resulted in the lowest precision for molar implant.