Abduo Jaafar, El-Haddad Hossam
Department of Prosthodontics, Melbourne Dental School, Melbourne University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Eur J Dent. 2024 Feb;18(1):349-355. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1771031. Epub 2023 Aug 29.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of adjacent teeth patterns on the accuracy of digital scans of parallel and divergent implants for three-unit prostheses.
A maxillary typodont model with implants in the locations of the first premolars and first molars was used to develop three clinical scenarios for three-unit prostheses: (S1) Partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars and first molars only; (S2) partially edentulous arch with missing first premolars, second premolars and first molars; and (S3) partially edentulous arch with missing canines, first premolars, second premolars, first molars, and second molars. On one side, the implants were parallel, and for the other side, the implants had a 15-degree buccolingual angle. With the aid of scan bodies, 10 digital impressions were taken for each scenario and for each side. To evaluate the accuracy, a reverse engineering software was used to measure trueness, precision, and interimplant distance.
The best trueness for parallel implants was observed for S2 (30.0 µm), followed by S3 (67.3 µm) and S1 (74.8 µm) ( < 0.001). Likewise, S2 had the best precision for parallel implants (31.3 µm) followed by S3 (38.0 µm) and S1 (70.3 µm) ( < 0.001). For the divergent implants, S2 exhibited the best trueness (23.1 µm), followed by S3 (48.2 µm) and S1 (59.4 µm) ( = 0.007). Similarly, the S2 had the best precision (12.3 µm) followed by S3 (62.1 µm) and S1 (66.9 µm) ( < 0.001). The S2 had the least interimplant distance deviation followed by S1 and S3. The difference was significant for parallel implants ( = 0.03), but insignificant for divergent implants ( = 0.15).
Regardless of the presenting scenario, digital implant impressions for three-unit prostheses appear to be clinically accurate. A clear interimplant area between scan bodies enhanced the accuracy of digital impressions. This observation can be attributed to more accessible axial surface scanning of the scan body.
本研究旨在评估邻牙形态对三单位修复体平行和发散种植体数字扫描准确性的影响。
使用在上颌第一前磨牙和第一磨牙位置植入种植体的牙列模型,为三单位修复体设计三种临床场景:(S1)仅缺失第一前磨牙和第一磨牙的部分无牙弓;(S2)缺失第一前磨牙、第二前磨牙和第一磨牙的部分无牙弓;(S3)缺失尖牙、第一前磨牙、第二前磨牙、第一磨牙和第二磨牙的部分无牙弓。一侧种植体相互平行,另一侧种植体有15度的颊舌向角度。借助扫描体,对每种场景和每一侧均采集10次数字印模。为评估准确性,使用逆向工程软件测量精度、精密度和种植体间距离。
平行种植体在S2时精度最佳(30.0 µm),其次是S3(67.3 µm)和S1(74.8 µm)(<0.001)。同样,平行种植体在S2时精密度最佳(31.3 µm),其次是S3(38.0 µm)和S1(70.3 µm)(<0.001)。对于发散种植体,S2精度最佳(23.1 µm),其次是S3(48.2 µm)和S1(59.4 µm)(=0.007)。类似地,S2精密度最佳(12.3 µm),其次是S3(62.1 µm)和S1(66.9 µm)(<0.001)。S2的种植体间距离偏差最小,其次是S1和S3。平行种植体的差异具有统计学意义(=0.03),但发散种植体的差异无统计学意义(=0.15)。
无论呈现何种场景,三单位修复体的种植体数字印模在临床上似乎都是准确的。扫描体之间清晰的种植体间区域提高了数字印模的准确性。这一观察结果可归因于扫描体轴向表面扫描更容易进行。