Dating Geomagnetic Polarity Epochs in Réunion

F. H. Chamalaun,I. Mcdougall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/2101212A0

IF: 64.8

1966-06-18

Nature

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns

Marta Revilla-León,Miguel Gómez-Polo,Abdul B Barmak,Burak Yilmaz,John C Kois,Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.03.017

2024-04-18

Abstract:Statement of problem: Multiple factors can influence the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). However, the impact of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of IOSs for fabricating tooth-supported crowns remains uncertain. Purpose: The purpose of the present in vitro study was to measure the influence of scan extension (half or complete arch scan) and the starting quadrant (same quadrant or contralateral quadrant of the location of the crown preparation) on the accuracy of four IOSs. Material and methods: A typodont with a crown preparation on the left first molar was digitized (T710) to obtain a reference scan. Four scanner groups were created: TRIOS 5, PrimeScan, i700, and iTero. Then, 3 subgroups were defined based on the scan extension and starting quadrant: half arch (HA subgroup), complete arch scan starting on the left quadrant (CA-same subgroup), and complete arch scan starting on the right quadrant (CA-contralateral subgroup), (n=15). The reference scan was used as a control to measure the root mean square (RMS) error discrepancies with each experimental scan on the tooth preparation, margin of the tooth preparation, and adjacent tooth areas. Two-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene and pairwise comparisons using the Wilcoxon Rank sum tests were used to analyze precision (α=.05). Results: For the tooth preparation analysis, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.002). The iTero and TRIOS5 groups obtained better trueness than the PrimeScan and i700 groups (P<.001). Moreover, half arch scans obtained the best trueness, while the CA-contralateral scans obtained the worst trueness (P<.001). The iTero group showed the worst precision among the IOSs tested. For the margin of the tooth preparation evaluation, significant trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The iTero group obtained best trueness (P<.001), but the worst precision (P<.001) among the IOSs tested. Half arch scans obtained the best trueness and precision values. For the adjacent tooth analysis, trueness and precision differences were found among the groups (P<.001) and subgroups tested (P<.001), with a significant interaction group×subgroup (P=.005). The TRIOS 5 obtained the best trueness and precision. Half arch scans obtained the best accuracy. Conclusions: Scan extension and the starting quadrant impacted the scanning trueness and precision of the IOSs tested. Additionally, the IOSs showed varying scanning discrepancies depending on the scanning area assessed. Half arch scans presented the highest trueness and precision, and the complete arch scans in which the scan started in the contralateral quadrant of where the crown preparation was obtained the worst trueness and precision.
An encompassing test for non-nested quantile regression models

Chung-Ming Kuan,Hsin-yi Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECONLET.2010.01.040

2010-02-19

Abstract:
Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An In Vitro Study

Nada El Osta,Noémie Drancourt,Chantal Auduc,Jean-Luc Veyrune,Emmanuel Nicolas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104892

IF: 4.991

2024-02-18

Journal of Dentistry

Abstract:Objectives To evaluate the accuracy of conventional polyether impressions and digital scans produced by five intra-oral scanners (IOSs) in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism for long-span implant-supported prostheses. Methods This in vitro study involved the impression of a maxillary model with free-end partial edentulism, in which six implants were placed before digitization using a desktop scanner to generate a digital reference model. Conventional impressions (Impregum Penta Soft, 3M) and digital scans with five IOSs (Trios 3 and 4, 3Shape; Primescan, Dentsply-Sirona; CS 3600, Carestream Dental; and i-500, Medit) were obtained. Conventional impressions were digitized using the same desktop scanner. Each digital STL file of conventional or digital impressions was superimposed over the reference STL file to enable comparison. Trueness was assessed by calculating angles and distance deviations. For precision, dispersions of values around their means were also measured. Results The mean distance deviation was significantly higher for conventional impressions (454.24 ± 334.70 μm) than for IOSs (ranging from 160.98 ± 204.48 μm to 255.56 ± 395.89 μm) ( p < 0.001). The mean angular deviation was high with conventional impressions (1.82 ± 1.51°), intermediate with CS 3600 (1.38 ± 1.42°), Primescan (1.37 ± 2.54°) and Trios 4 (1.30 ± 0.64°) scanners, and lower with I500 (0.97 ± 0.75°) and Trios 3 (1.01 ± 0.85°) scanners ( p < 0.001). The dispersion of distance values around their means was lowest with Trios 3 and i-500, followed by CS3600, Primescan, and Trios 4, respectively, and higher for conventional impressions ( p < 0.001). The dispersion of angular values was smallest with i-500, Trios 3, and Trios 4 compared with other groups and was highest with Primescan ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Within the limits of the current study, Trios 3 scanner exhibited the highest accuracy, followed by i-500, Trios 4, CS 3600, Primescan, and conventional impressions respectively. IOSs might be reliable for the fabrication of an implant-supported prosthesis. In vivo studies are required to confirm these findings. Clinical significance Passive adaptation of the implant-supported framework is a challenge when rehabilitating patients with maxillary free-end partial edentulism. While Conventional impressions remain a reliable and validated technique, but IOSs demonstrated higher accuracy, suitable for the fabrication of long-span implant-supported prostheses in partially edentulous arch.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Architektur verteilter Workflow-Management-Systeme

H. Schuster

Abstract:
Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions – An in vitro study

Zhen-Yu Wang,Yu Gong,Fei Liu,Du Chen,Jia-Wen Zheng,Jie-Fei Shen,Zhen-yu Wang,Jia-wen Zheng,Jie-fei Shen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104929

IF: 4.991

2024-04-01

Journal of Dentistry

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of intraoral scanning coverage (IOSC) on digital implant impression accuracy in various partially edentulous situations and predict the optimal IOSC.METHODS: Five types of resin models were fabricated, each simulating single or multiple tooth loss scenarios with inserted implants and scan bodies. IOSC was subgrouped to cover two, four, six, eight, ten, and twelve teeth, as well as full arch. Each group underwent ten scans. A desktop scanner served as the reference. Accuracy was evaluated by measuring the Root mean square error (RMSE) values of scan bodies. A convolutional neural network (CNN) was trained to predict the optimal IOSC with different edentulous situations. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.RESULTS: For single-tooth-missing situations, in anterior sites, significantly better accuracy was observed in groups with IOSC ranging from four teeth to full arch (p < 0.05). In premolar sites, IOSC spanning four to six teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05), while in molar sites, groups with IOSC encompassing two to eight teeth exhibited better accuracy (p < 0.05). For multiple-teeth-missing situations, IOSC covering four, six, and eight teeth, as well as full arch showed better accuracy in anterior gaps (p < 0.05). In posterior gaps, IOSC of two, four, six or eight teeth were more accurate (p < 0.05). The CNN predicted distinct optimal IOSC for different edentulous scenarios.CONCLUSIONS: Implant impression accuracy can be significantly impacted by IOSC in different partially edentulous situations. The selection of IOSC should be customized to the specific dentition defect condition.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The number of teeth scanned can significantly affect digital implant impression accuracy. For missing single or four anterior teeth, scan at least four or six neighboring teeth is acceptable. In lateral cases, two neighboring teeth may suffice, but extending over ten teeth, including contralateral side, might deteriorate the scan.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques

Mingyue Lyu,Ping Di,Ye Lin,Xi Jiang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.016

IF: 4.148

2021-01-01

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem. Intraoral scanning has benefits over conventional impression making, but whether scanning is sufficiently accurate for multiple implants is unclear.Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of digital scans acquired by using intraoral scanners from a small range to a complete arch with the conventional impression technique and to determine the influence of 2 different evaluation methods (best -fit algorithm versus absolute linear deviation) on the outcomes of accuracy assessment.Material and methods. A mandibular model with 8 implants (A-H) around an edentulous arch was used as the master model. Open-format standard tessellation language (STL) data sets (1 reference file from a highly accurate dental laboratory scanner, 10 files from an intraoral scanner, and 10 files from digitized conventional impressions at room temperature) were imported to a metrology software program, and 5 groups of scanning ranges (AB, FGH, CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH) were identified simulating different clinical situations. Two evaluation methods -root mean square values calculated from the best -fit algorithm and average value of linear discrepancies from absolute linear deviation -were used to describe the trueness values. The impacts of different scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods were tested by using a 3-way ANOVA. The effect of the scanning range on accuracy was further identified with 1-way ANOVA. The paired-sample t test was used to determine the differences of trueness values between the 2 methods in different groups.Results. The trueness values of the implant impressions were significantly affected by different scanning or impression methods (P<.001), evaluation methods (P<.001), and scanning ranges (P<.001) as independent variables. With use of the best -fit algorithm, deviations from the digital scans were significantly greater than those from the conventional impressions in cross -arch situations (groups CDEF, BCDEFG, and ABCDEFGH). With use of the absolute linear deviation method, statistically significant lower accuracy was found when larger areas were encountered (groups BCDEFG and ABCDEFGH). Use of the absolute linear deviation method resulted in a higher mean score of inaccuracy than that from the best -fit algorithm method in most situations.Conclusions. Scanning or impression methods, ranges, and evaluation methods affected the dimensional accuracy (trueness) of scans or impressions with multiple implants. Digital scans had worse trueness values compared with those made with the conventional splinting open-tray technique when cross-arch implant impressions were acquired. (J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1017-23)
Influence of implant reference on the scanning accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured by using a photogrammetry system

Marta Revilla-León,Miguel Gómez-Polo,Michael Drone,Abdul B Barmak,Wael Att,John C Kois,Jorge Alonso Pérez-Barquero,Abdul B. Barmak,John C. Kois

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.008

IF: 4.148

2024-01-25

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Photogrammetry has been reported to be a reliable digital alternative for recording implant positions; however, the factors that may impact the accuracy of photogrammetry techniques remain unknown. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of the implant reference on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans acquired by using a photogrammetry system. Material and methods An edentulous cast with 6 implant abutment analogs (MultiUnit Abutment Plus Replica) was obtained and digitized by using a laboratory scanner (T710; Medit). A photogrammetry system (PIC System) was selected to obtain complete arch implant scans. An optical marker (PIC Transfer, HC MUA Metal; PIC Dental) was positioned on each implant abutment of the reference cast. Each optical marker code and position was determined in the photogrammetry software program. Three groups were created based on the implant reference selected before acquiring the photogrammetry scans: right first molar (IPR-3 group), left canine (IPR-11 group), and left first molar (IPR-14 group) (n=30). Euclidean linear and angular measurements were obtained on the digitized reference cast and used to compare the discrepancies with the same measurements obtained on each experimental scan. One-way ANOVA and the Tukey tests were used to analyze the trueness data. The Levene test was used to analyze the precision values (α=.05 for all tests). Results One-way ANOVA revealed significant linear ( P =.003) and angular ( P =.009) trueness differences among the groups tested. Additionally, the Tukey test showed that the IPR-11 and IPR-14 groups had significantly different linear ( P <.001) and angular trueness ( P <.001). The Levene test showed no significant precision linear ( P =.197) and angular ( P =.235) discrepancies among the groups tested. The IPR-3 group obtained the highest trueness ( P <.001) and precision ( P <.001) values among the groups tested. Conclusions Implant reference impacted the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using the photogrammetry system tested. However, a trueness ±precision linear discrepancy of 6 ±3 μm and an angular discrepancy of 0.01 ±0.01 degrees were measured among the groups tested; therefore, the impact of the discrepancy measured should not be clinically significant.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study

Antoanela Garbacea,Ali F Alqahtani,Brian Goodacre,Abdulaziz Alhelal,Jaime Lozada,Mathew T Kattadiyil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-D-21-00293

2022-07-11

Abstract:Accuracy of completely edentulous arch scanning with implant scan bodies has not been completely validated for intraoral scanners. For desktop laboratory scanners validations were found in the literature. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the dimensional accuracy of scanning with splinted and unsplinted scan bodies on a completely edentulous maxillary arch with 6 implants. A maxillary edentulous master cast with 6 implants was used as control for all implant level impressions. 6 implants were digitally planned and placed at different angulation of 0, 0 17° and 30°. A contact coordinate measuring machine (CMM) was used to generate baseline linear measurements of the master cast. Four test groups included: 2 intraoral scanners Trios (3shape, Copenhagen, Denmark) and True Definition (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN), one industrial scanner Atos (Core optical 3D scanner) and one conventional impression group scanned with laboratory scanner Dental Wings 7 Series. Each scan recording was made with splinted and unsplinted scan bodies. Digital datasets of all measurements were compared with the CMM baseline values using PolyWorks® InnovMetric Software in order to assess the linear and angular deviations and determine the accuracy of complete arch digital impression. Factorial ANOVA showed significant effect with splinting, scanner type, inter-implant distance and implant angulation for linear deviations. Splinted scan bodies revealed elevated linear and angular deviation values for all scanners with significantly highest deviations for True Definition scanner. Significant correlation was found between inter-implant distance and linear deviation (r =0.45, P =<0.001) with increased linear deviations among all scanners, regardless of splinting. ( P <0.05). Significant effect on accuracy was seen for angular deviation with splinting, scanner type and implant angulation; significant difference was found between 0° and 30° implant angulation ( P =0.035) with more deviation with 30° implant angulation. The accuracy of the complete arch implant digital impression using splinted scan bodies was significantly reduced for measurements that crossed the arch midline. The digital impression technique using a broad splint design to connect scan bodies was not found to improve the scan accuracy for intraoral scanners.
Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: A systematic review

Ana Larisse Carneiro Pereira,Vitória Ramos Medeiros,Adriana da Fonte Porto Carreiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.09.008

Abstract:Statement of problem: Parallel dental implants improve prosthesis longevity and facilitate the impression making steps when compared with angled implants. The effect of implant angulation on the accuracy of casts generated by using intraoral scanners has not been fully investigated. Purpose: The present systematic review addressed following the patient, intervention, control, and outcome (PICO) question: Does implant position affect the intraoral scanning accuracy of arches that will receive complete-arch implant-supported fixed dental prostheses? Material and methods: A bibliographic search was performed in the Medline-PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases by using specific descriptors for studies published until July 2020. All studies evaluated the intraoral scanning accuracy of arches rehabilitated with multiple implants through implant linear and/or angular deviation. Results: Eight in vitro studies that met the eligibility criteria were evaluated. Five publications showed lower linear and angular displacements for the digital scans compared with the conventional technique. Two studies showed that the digital scan presented higher angular and linear distortions than the conventional technique. Only 1 study did not find differences between the 2 recording methods. Conclusions: Digital scanning is reliable. However, caution is needed concerning its indication, especially in patients where the angles between implants are greater than 15 degrees. The association of the implant angulation with the clinical factors needs to be further investigated. The absence of clinical evidence and methodological heterogeneity limited the results of this study.
Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

Jing Cheng,Haidong Zhang,Hailin Liu,Junying Li,Hom‐Lay Wang,Xian Tao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14252

2024-03-02

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract:Objectives The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness and precision of complete arch implant impressions using conventional impression, intraoral scanning with and without splinting, and stereophotogrammetry. Materials and Methods An edentulous model with six implants was used in this study. Four implant impression techniques were compared: the conventional impression (CI), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting, intraoral scanning with splinting (MIOS), and stereophotogrammetry (SPG). An industrial blue light scanner was used to generate the baseline scan from the model. The CI was captured with a laboratory scanner. The reference best‐fit method was then applied in the computer‐aided design (CAD) software to compute the three‐dimensional, angular, and linear discrepancies among the four impression techniques. The root mean square (RMS) 3D discrepancies in trueness and precision between the four impression groups were analyzed with a Kruskal–Wallis test. Trueness and precision between single analogs were assessed using generalized estimating equations. Results Significant differences in the overall trueness (p = .017) and precision (p .05). Conclusions Stereophotogrammetry showed superior trueness and precision, meeting misfit thresholds for implant‐supported complete arch prostheses. Intraoral scanning, while accurate like conventional impressions, exhibited cross‐arch angular and linear deviations. Adding a splint to the scan body did not improve intraoral scanning accuracy.

engineering, biomedical,dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study

Asaf Shely,Diva Lugassy,Ophir Rosner,Eran Zanziper,Joseph Nissan,Shir Rachmiel,Yara Khoury,Gil Ben-Izhack

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12206644

IF: 3.9

2023-10-20

Journal of Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the inter-implant distance, inter-implant axis, and intra-implant axis of three implants in a straight line by using a laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS) with two different intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs). Methods: A 3D model was printed with internal hex implant analogs of three implants in positions 15#, 16#, and 17#. Two standard intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs) were used: MIS ISB (two-piece titanium) and Zirkonzhan ISB (two-piece titanium). Both ISBs were scanned using 7 Series dental wings (LBS) and 30 times using Primescan (IOS). For each scan, a stereolithography (STL) file was created and a comparison between all the scans was performed through superimposition of the STL files by using 3D analysis software (PolyWorks® 2020; InnovMetric, Québec, QC, Canada). A Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed followed by a Mann–Whitney test (p < 0.05). Results: The change in inter-implant distance for the MIS ISB was significantly lower compared to the ZZ (p < 0.05). The change in intra-implant angle was significantly lower for the ZZ ISB compared to MIS (p < 0.05). The changes in inter-implant angle between the mesial and middle and between the middle and distal were significantly lower for MIS compared to ZZ in contrast to mesial to distal, which was significantly higher (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Both ISBs showed differences in all the parameters between the LBS and the IOS. The geometry of the scan abutment had an impact on the inter-implant distance as the changes in the inter-implant distance were significantly lower for the MIS ISB. The changes in the intra-implant angle were significantly lower for the ZZ ISB. There is a need for further research examining the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the trueness.

medicine, general & internal
On Ramsey numbers for linear forests

S. Burr,John A. Roberts

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0012-365X(74)90136-8

IF: 0.961

1974-05-01

Discrete Mathematics

Abstract:
Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An<i> in</i><i> vitro</i> study

Yifang Ke,Yaopeng Zhang,Yong Wang,Hu Chen,Yuchun Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104561

IF: 4.991

2023-01-01

Journal of Dentistry

Abstract:Objectives: This study evaluated the accuracy of digital implant impressions with or without prefabricated landmarks compared with the conventional method in the edentulous mandible.Methods: An edentulous mandibular stone cast with implant abutment analogs and scan bodies in FDI #46, #43, #33, and #36 served as the master model. The scans captured with intraoral scanners (IOS) were divided into four groups: IOS-NT (no landmarks + Trios 4 scanner), IOS-NA (no landmarks + Aoralscan 3 scanner), IOS-YT (landmarks + Trios 4 scanner), and IOS-YA (landmarks + Aoralscan 3 scanner) (n=10). Landmarks were attached to the scan bodies with resin to improve scanning fluency. Conventional open-trayed technique (CNV) was performed with the 3D-printed splinting frameworks (n=10). The master model and conventional castings were scanned using a laboratory scanner, and the former served as the reference model. Overall distance and angle deviations between scan bodies were measured to determine trueness and precision. The ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test compared CNV group to scans without landmarks, while a generalized linear model analyzed scan groups with and without landmarks.Results: Compared to the CNV group, the IOS-NA and IOS-NT groups showed higher overall distance trueness (p=0.009), and precision (distance, p<0.001 and angular, p<0.001). With landmarks, the IOS-YA group had higher overall trueness (distance, p<0.001 and angular, p<0.001) than the IOS-NA group, and the IOS-YT group has higher distance trueness (p=0.041) than the IOS-NT group. Moreover, the precision in distance and angle was significantly improved for IOS-YA and IOS-YT groups, compared with the IOS-NA (p<0.001) and IOS-NT (p<0.001) groups separately.Conclusions: Digital scans were more accurate than conventional splinting open-trayed impressions. Prefabricated landmarks significantly improved the accuracy of full-arch implant digital scans, regardless of the scanner used.
The impact of mandibular partial edentulous distal extension on virtual occlusal record accuracy when using two different intraoral scanners: An in vitro analysis

Jiehua Tian,Ronald Ernst Jung,Yuqi Han,Yupeng Mei,Ping Di

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105303

Abstract: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.
Accuracy of dental implants positioning in computer-assisted surgeries: in vitro study

Erick Andres Alpaca Zevallos,Luciano Henrique Ferreira Lima,Karine Laura Cortellazzi Mendes,Alexander Tadeu Sverzut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jormas.2024.101828

IF: 2.48

2024-03-19

Journal of Stomatology Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Abstract:Objectives The aim of this study is to presents an experimental method for surgical guide confection using an intraoral scanner to obtain a 3D model of the patient's complete denture and compare its accuracy with the conventional methodology using computed tomography. Study design This prospective in-vitro study used 30 polyurethane pre-manufactured mandibles which were divided into two groups, conventional technique (group I) and a new method using intraoral scanner (group II), establishing the virtually planned position of the dental implants as a control group, considered as the gold standard for postoperative comparison. Results The difference between these methods is close to zero and not statistically significant ( p >0.05), being heigh deviation (Xh) with p:0.130 and angulation difference of dental implants between the groups (Ang) with p:0.396. Conclusion The acquisition of stereolithography image of the prosthesis using an intraoral scanner has a clinically acceptable accuracy, being in agreement with the conventional method.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of full-arch scans by Cerec Primescan AC: an in vitro and in vivo comparison

Christine Keul,Jan-Frederik Güth

2022-03-24

Abstract:Aim: To determine the effect of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of digital full-arch scans. Materials and methods: A reference bar was used for the in vivo and in vitro parts of the present study. For the in vitro part (PAT-vitro), the bar was fixed to connect the maxillary second molars on the patient's resin model. The same reference bar was fixed in a similar position intraorally for the in vivo testing (PAT-vivo). Model and patient were digitized using an intraoral scanner (Cerec Primescan AC, N = 40, n [PAT-vitro] = 20, n [PAT-vivo] = 20). Datasets were exported and metrically analyzed (Geomagic Control 2015) to determine the 3D linear and angular distortions in all three coordinate axes of the datasets with reference to the bar. Normality of the data distribution was tested using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. Homogeneity of the variances was tested using the Levené test. Statistically significant differences for all measured parameters in view of trueness were determined using the two-sample t test, and in view of precision using the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Results: The PAT-vivo group showed significantly higher trueness for most of the measured linear and angular distortion parameters than the PAT-vitro group. Regarding precision, the PAT-vitro group showed significantly better values for most of the measured linear and angular distortion parameters than the PAT-vivo group. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, Cerec Primescan AC leads to comparable accuracy parameters when applied in vivo and in vitro. The reproducibility (precision) was higher when scans were performed in vitro. Due to the high trueness, the system seems to be a valid tool to obtain digital full-arch datasets in vivo with comparable accuracy to in vitro tests. coronalaxial.
Effect of a calibration aid and the intraoral scanner on the registration of a partially edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study

Sophia Boehm,Stefan Rues,Alexandra Balzer,Peter Rammelsberg,Moritz Waldecker

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.02.019

IF: 4.148

2024-03-14

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Precise data are a prerequisite for accurately fitting restorations. Therefore, intraoral scanners have to be reliable. Data on differences between the same model of intraoral scanning systems are lacking. Purpose This in vitro study evaluated differences in the scanning accuracy of a partially edentulous maxilla between combinations of new intraoral scanners of a single model from the same manufacturer (Primescan; Dentsply Sirona) and several calibration aids. Material and methods The in vitro reference model simulated a maxilla with 6 prepared teeth for a complete arch fixed partial denture. Five precision ceramic balls were used to detect dimensional deviation between the reference model and the scan. Distances were divided into 4 categories, from short distances between 2 neighboring precision balls to the cross-arch distance with the scan path comprising all 5 balls. For each combination of 4 new intraoral scanners and their respective calibration aids, 12 model registrations were generated. The data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA (α=.05). Results Distance deviations increased with increasing scan path length and were significantly affected by the covariates "scanner" ( P ≤.023) and, for 3 of 4 distance categories, the "calibration aid" (short, medium, and long distances: P ≤.013). For short and medium distances, acceptable scanning results were achieved for all test groups. The largest deviation was 539 μm for the cross-arch distance. Conclusions Scanning accuracy depends on the scanner and the calibration aid used, in particular, for spans exceeding a single quadrant.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Effect of using scan body accessories and inter‐implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

Amal Ashry,Ahmed M. Abdelhamid,Salah Ezzelarab,Mohamed Moataz Khamis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13856

2024-04-11

Journal of Prosthodontics

Abstract:Purpose: To introduce a novel design for scan body accessory parts that are reusable, easy to attach and detach without permanent change of the scan body, and can be used with different inter‐implant distances to enhance the accuracy of complete arch implant scans. Materials and Methods: A maxillary polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) model with a soft tissue replica was fabricated with four implant analogs located at tooth positions 17, 13, 22, and 27 with 18, 25, and 30 mm inter‐implant distances. Four scan bodies (SBs) were attached to the implants. The model was scanned with a laboratory scanner to be used as a reference scan. A total of 40 scans were made with the same intraoral scanner and they were divided equally into two groups. Group A: Complete arch implant scans without scan body accessories (n = 20), and Group B: Complete arch implant scans with scan body accessories (n = 20). Intraoral scans were exported and superimposed on the reference scan using reverse engineering inspection software to be evaluated for 3D deviations, angular deviations, and linear deviations. Statistical analysis was performed with student t‐test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures followed by post hoc adjusted Bonferroni test. The level of significance was set at P = 0.05. Results: The scan body accessories decreased both the 3D and linear deviations, with a statistically significant difference at SB4 for the 3D deviation (P = 0.043) and the linear inter‐implant discrepancies between SB1–SB2 and SB3–SB4 (P = 0.029 and < 0.001), respectively. However, there was no statistically significant difference in angular deviation between the study groups. Implant positions had significant differences within each group. Conclusions: A significant improvement in the accuracy of the complete arch implant digital impression was achieved by using the scan body accessories, particularly in reducing the 3D and linear deviations at the most distant implant positions.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Effect of different surface locking patterns on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study

Elissa Kondakji,Ghida Lawand,Wassim Yaacoub,Hani Tohme

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.05.019

Abstract:Statement of problem: The effect of different surface locking patterns on the trueness of a digital implant scan of a completely edentulous arch remains uncertain. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate whether locking surfaces with different patterns affected the trueness of complete arch implant digital scans. Material and methods: An edentulous maxillary cast with 4 implants (2 anterior implants parallel and 2 posterior implants tilted at 17 degrees) was fabricated. Four implant-level scan bodies were fixed onto the implants, and the cast was scanned with a desktop scanner to create the reference file. Four groups (L0, L1, L2, and L3) were formed, each with a distinct locking surface configuration, and all scans were made using the same intraoral scanner. L0 kept all 4 implant-level scan bodies during scanning. L1 involved removing the right first premolar (RPM) scan body, scanning the other 3 implant scan bodies, then reattaching the RPM's scan body, and continuing scanning. In L2, the RPM and right lateral incisor (RIC) scan bodies were removed, followed by scanning the left implants to create a locking surface, and scanning the right implants. In L3, only the left posterior molar's (LPM) scan body was retained and scanned; then a locking surface was generated, and then the remaining implants were scanned. A metrology software program (Geomagic Control X) was used for comparison. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis, the 1-way ANOVA, the Welch ANOVA, the Friedman test, the repeated-measures ANOVA, the Bonferroni post hoc test, and the Games-Howell post hoc test (α=.05). Results: Significant 3D surface deviations were observed in the coronal bevel (CB) region and in the entire scan bodies when assessing trueness in the L0, L1, L2, and L3 groups (P<.001). L2 exhibited the highest discrepancies in 3D surface deviation for CB (0.030 ±0.002 mm) and implant scan bodies (0.357 ±0.052 mm) and distance deviation, while the highest mean angular deviation values were found in L0 (0.924 ±0.131 degrees). Conclusions: Locking half of the arch showed the highest trueness discrepancies when performing digital scans for complete arch implant-supported prostheses.
Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans

Motasem Bellah Bader Eddin,Özay Önöral

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.07.001

2024-07-26

Abstract:Statement of problem: Studies are sparse on how splinting scan bodies or incorporating 3-dimensionally (3D) printed scan aids influence the trueness of complete arch digital scans. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the trueness of multisite implant recordings obtained using 6 different methods on an edentulous mandible. Material and methods: A definitive cast of an edentulous mandible with 4 multi-unit analogs placed at different angles and interanalog distances was extraorally scanned, and the resulting data were saved as a reference file. To obtain experimental files, 6 distinct methods were used: conventional impression with splinted open-tray impression copings (IC), intraoral scanning (IOS) without splinting scan bodies or using any scan aids (SB), IOS with pattern resin-splinted scan bodies (PR), IOS with composite resin-splinted scan bodies (CR), IOS with 3D printed custom scan bodies (CSB), and IOS with 3D printed auxiliary apparatus (AA). The experimental files were aligned to the reference file in a metrology software program. The 3D comparison algorithm was run to quantify the root mean square estimate error (RMS). Scan bodies in the files were converted to hollow virtual cylinders, and the Cartesian coordinates of the lines passing through the centers of these cylinders were recorded to analyze angular (AD) and linear distortion (LD). LD was further analyzed along the x (∆X), y (∆Y), and z axes (∆Z). One-way ANOVAs with the Tukey HSD test were used for statistical analysis (α=.05). Results: AD at all sites, LD at all sites, and the RMS error showed significant differences (P<.05). The IC group showed the lowest AD values across all sites, followed by the AA, CSB, PR, CR, and SB groups. The SB group had the greatest LD values at all sites, while the IC group indicated the lowest LD values at all sites except the left anterior site. In terms of 3D distortions, the SB group had the largest RMS value, whereas the IC group showed the lowest RMS value. ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values also showed significant differences at all sites (P<.001) except for the ∆Z values at the right anterior site (P=.194). The highest mean ∆X, ∆Y, and ∆Z values were recorded in the SB group except for the ∆Z measurement of the left posterior site. Conclusions: The IC group outperformed the other groups. The AA group exhibited distortion comparable with that of the IC group. Splinting scan bodies or using scan aids enhanced the trueness.

Dating Geomagnetic Polarity Epochs in Réunion

Influence of scan extension and starting quadrant on the accuracy of four intraoral scanners for fabricating tooth-supported crowns

An encompassing test for non-nested quantile regression models

Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: An In Vitro Study

Architektur verteilter Workflow-Management-Systeme

Influence of intraoral scanning coverage on the accuracy of digital implant impressions – An in vitro study

Accuracy of Impressions for Multiple Implants: A Comparative Study of Digital and Conventional Techniques

Influence of implant reference on the scanning accuracy of complete arch implant scans captured by using a photogrammetry system

Scanning accuracy with splinted and unsplinted implant scan bodies for the edentulous arch at implant level: an in vitro study

Influence of implant position on the accuracy of intraoral scanning in fully edentulous arches: A systematic review

Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry

The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study

On Ramsey numbers for linear forests

Comparing the accuracy of full-arch implant impressions using the conventional technique and digital scans with and without prefabricated landmarks in the mandible: An<i> in</i><i> vitro</i> study

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

Accuracy of dental implants positioning in computer-assisted surgeries: in vitro study

Influence of intraoral conditions on the accuracy of full-arch scans by Cerec Primescan AC: an in vitro and in vivo comparison

Effect of a calibration aid and the intraoral scanner on the registration of a partially edentulous maxilla: An in vitro study

Effect of using scan body accessories and inter‐implant distances on the accuracy of complete arch implant digital impressions: An in vitro study

Effect of different surface locking patterns on the trueness of complete arch digital implant scans: An in vitro study

Influence of splinting scan bodies or incorporating three-dimensionally printed scan aids on the trueness of complete arch digital scans