Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Previous studies have analyzed factors influencing intraoral scanner accuracy; however, how the intraoral scan body design affects the implant position on the virtual definitive cast is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure the discrepancies of the implant replica positions of the virtual definitive implant cast obtained by using 3 different scan body designs when performing a digital scan.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A partially edentulous typodont with 3 implant replicas (Implant Replica RP Branemark system; Nobel Biocare Services AG) was prepared. Three groups were determined based on the scan body system evaluated: SB-1 (Elos Accurate Nobel Biocare), SB-2 (NT Digital Implant Technology), and SB-3 (Dynamic Abutment). Each scan body was positioned on each implant replica of the typodont, and was digitized by using an intraoral scanner (iTero Element; Cadent) as per the manufacturer's scanning protocol at 1000 lux illuminance. A standard tessellation language (STL) file was obtained. Before the scan bodies were removed from the typodont, a coordinate measuring machine (CMM Contura G2 10/16/06 RDS; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH) was used to measure the scan body positions on the x-, y-, and z-axis. The linear and angular discrepancies between the position of the scan bodies on the typodont and STL file were calculated by using the best fit technique with a specific program (Calypso; Carl Zeiss Industrielle Messtechnik GmbH). The procedure was repeated until 10 STL files were obtained per group. The Shapiro-Wilk test revealed that the data were not normally distributed. The data were analyzed by using the Mann-Whitney U test (α=.05).

RESULTS

The coordinate measuring machine was unable to measure the scan body positions of the magnetically retained SB-3 group because of its mobility when palpating at the smallest pressure possible. Therefore, this group was excluded. No significant differences were found in the linear discrepancies between the SB-1 and SB-2 groups (P>.05). The most accurate scan body position was obtained on the z-axis. However, the SB-1 group revealed a significantly higher XZ angular discrepancy than the SB-2 group (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The scan body systems tested (SB-1 and SB-2 groups) accurately transferred the linear implant positions to the virtual definitive implant cast. However, significant differences were observed in the XZ angular implant positions between the scan body systems analyzed.