The impact of mandibular partial edentulous distal extension on virtual occlusal record accuracy when using two different intraoral scanners: An in vitro analysis.

OBJECTIVES

This in vitro study was formulated to clarify how mandibular partial edentulous distal extension involving three missing teeth affects the virtual occlusal record (VOR) accuracy, in terms of both trueness and precision, when using two different intraoral scanners (IOSs) - the Primescan (PS) and Trios 4 (TR) scanners.

METHODS

A typodont model missing the left mandibular second premolar, first molar, and second molar as well as the right mandibular first molar was mounted on a semi-adjustable articulator. Four implants were placed at the sites of the missing mandibular teeth. Six pairs of stainless steel markers (diameter: 0.5 mm) were affixed to the maxillary and mandibular casts in the buccal gingiva adjacent to the implants and on the facial surfaces of teeth as reference positions for measurements. The model was digitized with an inEox X5 laboratory scanner to create a reference dataset. Intraoral scans were performed with the PS and TR scanners, with each scan duplicated 10 times to generate 20 paired IOS files. Automatic VOR generation followed the bilateral buccal scan protocol, divided into PS and TR groups (n = 10). Six subgroups of linear distances between interarch markers were assessed with Geomagic Control software, comparing deviations from the reference scan. Data normality was confirmed with the Shapiro-Wilk test. Trueness was evaluated with two-way ANOVAs and pairwise comparisons performed with Tukey's test, whereas precision was assessed with the Levene test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The mean linear deviation (Δd) and standard deviation (SD) of VOR were both significantly affected by marker position (P < 0.001), and a significant position × scanner interaction was detected (P < 0.001). Negative mean deviations were observed for the distally extended edentulous areas in both groups. PS scans exhibited trueness that was significantly better than that for TR scans in the D16-46, D13-43, D23-33, and D27-37 subgroups (P < 0.05), whereas there were no significant differences in the D25-35 or D26-36 subgroups. PS scanning was associated with significantly better precision than TR scanning (P < 0.001), and worse precision was observed at D27-37 for both tested IOSs.

CONCLUSIONS

Mandibular partial edentulous distal extension can significantly affect VOR accuracy. The type of IOS could also affect VOR accuracy depending on the area being scanned, with better overall performance observed for the Primescan device as compared to the Trios 4 scanner. Both of these IOSs tended to underestimate VOR occlusal dimensions in mandibular distally extended edentulous areas.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Mandibular distal edentulous areas can contribute to occlusal dimensions that are underestimated in digital workflows, which may result in infraocclusal discrepancies that arise when performing restorations. IOSs and VOR scanning protocols should thus be carefully considered in order to minimize these risks.