[Discovery of EML4-ALK, a new gene responsible for lung cancer, and the development of molecular targeted therapy].

H. Mano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2169/NAIKA.99.837

2010-04-10

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

Yuwei Yan,Xiao Lin,Xinxin Yue,Wei Geng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.03.033

Abstract:Statement of problem: Conventional impression techniques for complete arch implant-supported prostheses are technique-sensitive. Stereophotogrammetry (SPG) and intraoral scanning (IOS) may offer an alternative to conventional impression making. Purpose: The purpose of this prospective study was to compare the accuracy of IOS and SPG for complete arch implant scans and to evaluate the passive fit of frameworks fabricated with SPG. Material and methods: Laboratory scanning of gypsum casts, SPG, and IOS were performed for all participants. The data regarding the abutment platform were superimposed to calculate the 3D deviation of SPG and IOS compared with that of laboratory scanning as an evaluation of accuracy. The effect of implant position and number on accuracy was analyzed. The more accurate technique between SPG and IOS was used to fabricate the titanium frameworks, as was laboratory scanning. The passive fit of the frameworks was assessed by clinical examination, the Sheffield test, and panoramic radiography. Results: Seventeen participants (21 arches, 120 implants) were included. The accuracy of SPG ranged from 2.70 μm to 92.80 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 17.00 (11.68, 22.50) μm, which was significantly more accurate than that of IOS, ranging from 21.30 μm to 815.60 μm, with a median (Q1, Q3) of 48.95 (34.78, 75.88) μm. No significant correlation was found between position or number of implants and 3D deviation in the SPG group. A weak positive correlation was found between implant number and 3D deviation in the IOS group. SPG and laboratory scanning were used to fabricate titanium frameworks. The passive fit between the frameworks and abutment platforms was confirmed. Conclusions: SPG, which was not affected by position or number of implants, was more accurate than IOS and comparable with laboratory scanning. The frameworks fabricated based on SPG and laboratory scanning were comparable in their passive fit. The SPG technique may be an alternative to laboratory scanning for complete arch implant scans.
Comparison of Different Intraoral Scanners With Prefabricated Aid on Accuracy and Framework Passive Fit of Digital Complete-Arch Implant Impression: An In Vitro Study

Xiao-Jiao Fu,Min Liu,Jun-Yu Shi,Ke Deng,Hong-Chang Lai,Wen Gu,Xiao-Meng Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14353

2024-09-04

Abstract:Objectives: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of digital complete-arch implant impressions with prefabricated aids using three intraoral scanners (IOSs) and explore the correlation between virtual deviation measurement and physical framework misfit. Materials and methods: Four edentulous maxillary master models with four and six parallel and angular implants were fabricated and scanned by a laboratory scanner as reference scans. Ten scans of each master model were acquired using three IOSs (IOS-T, IOS-M, and IOS-A) with and without prefabricated aids. Trueness and precision of root mean square (RMS) errors were measured. Ten aluminum alloy frameworks were fabricated, and the misfit was measured with a micro-computed tomography scan with one screw tightened. Results: Trueness and precision showed significant improvement when prefabricated aids were used for all three IOSs (p < 0.010). Median (interquartile range) RMS errors of trueness reduced from 67.5 (30.4) to 61.8 (30.3) μm, from 100.6 (35.4) to 45.9 (15.1) μm, and from 52.7 (33.2) to 41.1 (22.5) μm for scanner IOS-T, IOS-M, and IOS-A, respectively (p < 0.010). The precision of IOS-A and IOS-M was significantly better than IOS-T when using prefabricated aid (p < 0.001). RMS errors and the maximum marginal misfit of the framework were significantly correlated (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.845). Conclusions: With the prefabricated aids, the accuracy of IOSs enhanced significantly in digital complete-arch implant impressions. Three IOSs showed different levels of improvement in accuracy. Virtual RMS errors <62.2 μm could be the clinically acceptable threshold (150 μm) for framework passive fit.
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.
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
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
Influence of connected and nonconnected calibrated frameworks on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using four intraoral scanners, a desktop scanner, and a photogrammetry system

Marta Revilla-León,Abdul B. Barmak,Alejandro Lanis,John C. Kois

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.017

IF: 4.148

2024-03-06

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Different techniques have been proposed for increasing the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using intraoral scanners (IOSs), including a calibrated metal framework (IOSFix); however, its accuracy remains uncertain. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of complete arch scans obtained with connecting and non-connecting the implant scan bodies (ISBs) recorded using intraoral scanners (IOSs), a laboratory scanner (LBS), and photogrammetry (PG). Material and methods A cast with 6 implant abutment analogs was obtained. Six groups were created: TRIOS 4, i700, iTero, CS3800, LBS, and PG groups. The IOSs and LBS groups were divided into 3 subgroups: nonconnected ISBs (ISB), splinted ISBs (SSB), and calibrated framework (CF), (n=15). For the ISB subgroups, an ISB was positioned on each implant abutment analog. For the SSB subgroups, a printed framework was used to connect the ISBs. For the CF subgroups, a calibrated framework (IOSFix) was used to connect the ISBs. For the PG group, scans were captured using a PG (PIC Camera). Implant positions of the reference cast were measured using a coordinate measurement machine, and Euclidean distances were used as a reference to calculate the discrepancies using the same distances obtained on each experimental scan. Wilcoxon squares 2-way ANOVA and pairwise multiple comparisons were used to analyze trueness (α=.05). The Levene test was used to analyze precision (α=.05). Results Linear and angular discrepancies were found among the groups ( P <.001) and subgroups ( P <.001). Linear ( P =.008) and angular ( P <.001) precision differences were found among the subgroups. Conclusions The digitizing method and technique impacted the trueness and precision of the implant scans. The photogrammetry and calibrated framework groups obtained the best accuracy. Except for TRIOS 4, the calibrated framework method improved the accuracy of the scans obtained by using the IOSs tested.

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)
In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings

Julián Conejo,Thomas H. Yoo,Pablo J. Atria,Howard Fraiman,Markus B. Blatz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.12.012

IF: 4.148

2024-01-05

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Intraoral digital scan techniques have been widely used and sufficient evidence supports this technique in partially edentulous patients. However, the evidence supporting the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for edentulous patients is limited. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the accuracy of complete arch conventional pick-up implant impressions with open and closed trays, complete arch digital implant scans with IOSs, and 3-dimensional (3D) printed casts from complete arch digital implant scans. Material and methods Six implants were placed in a mandibular model. Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the implants, scanned with a reference scanner, and exported in standard tessellation language (STL) format (Group Control). Splinted open-tray pick-up impressions (Group OT, n=5) and closed-tray pick-up impressions (Group CT, n=5) were made, and stone casts were fabricated. Digital scans (Group DS, n=5) were made with an IOS, and the STL files were exported to fabricate 3D-printed casts (Group STL, n=5). Scannable pick-up impression copings were inserted in the dental implant analogs in Groups OT, CT, and STL and scanned with the reference scanner. Using a 3D inspection software program, the recording techniques were compared with the control. Root mean square (RMS) values were calculated from the control, and superimposed digitized casts from different recording techniques. Analysis of variance was used to determine differences in RMS values, and theTukey post hoc test was used to determine difference between different groups. Results Group CT had the lowest mean dimensional difference when superimposed with Group Control, followed by Groups DS, OT, and STL. Significant differences were found in RMS values between Control and digitized casts fabricated with different techniques ( P <.05). The post hoc Tukey test revealed that Group DS ( P <.05) was significantly different from the other groups, while no significant difference was found among Groups CT, OT, and STL ( P >.05). Conclusions Based on the findings of the present study, 3D printed casts from digital scans have the same accuracy as stone casts from conventional impressions in complete arch implant cases. Intraoral scans had the highest accuracy. Complete arch pick-up impression techniques using dual-functioning scannable pick-up impression copings are as accurate as splinted complete arch pick-up impressions.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Does intra‐oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full‐arch implant‐supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Zheng‐zhen Cai,Xin Li,Xin‐Yu Wu,Hong‐Chang Lai,Jun‐Yu Shi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13321

2024-03-23

Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research

Abstract:Objectives The present study aimed to systematically review the studies comparing the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) and conventional implant impressions (CI) in completely edentulous patients. Materials and Methods Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL up to December 1, 2023. Clinical studies and in vitro studies reporting the accuracy of digital full arch impressions were included. The primary outcome is the 3‐dimensional deviations between the study reference models. A risk of bias assessment was performed for clinical studies. A stratified meta‐analysis and a single‐armed meta‐analysis were conducted. Results A total of 49 studies were included, with 8 clinical studies and 41 in vitro studies. For comparison between IOS and conventional impressions, studies were categorized into two groups based on the different measurement methods employed: RMS and CMM. In studies using RMS, the result favored the IOS in the unparalleled situation with the mean difference of −99.29 μm (95% CI: [−141.38, −57.19], I2 = 81%), while the result was opposite with the mean difference of 13.62 μm (95% CI: [10.97, 16.28], I2 = 26%) when implants were paralleled. For different brands of IOS, the accuracy ranged from 76.11 μm (95% CI: [42.36, 109.86]) to 158.63 μm (95% CI: [−14.68, 331.93]). Conclusions Accuracy of intraoral scan is clinically acceptable in edentulous arches, especially for unparalleled implants. More clinical studies are needed to verify the present finding.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
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.
Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Using a Novel Structured Light Scanning System Assisted by a Planar Mirror in the Edentulous Maxilla: an in Vitro Study

Yifang Ke,Yaopeng Zhang,Sukun Tian,Hu Chen,Yuchun Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/clr.14208

2023-01-01

Clinical Oral Implants Research

Abstract:Objectives: This study aimed to develop a structured light scanning system with a planar mirror to enhance the digital full-arch implant impression accuracy and to compare it with photogrammetry and intraoral scanner methods.Materials and Methods: An edentulous maxillary stone cast with six scan bodies was scanned as the reference model using a laboratory scanner. Three scanning modalities were compared (n = 10): (1) self-developed structured light scanning with a mirror (SSLS); (2) intraoral scanner (IOS); and (3) photogrammetry system (PG). The scanners were stopped for 1 min after each scan. Six scan bodies were analysed within each scan model. Linear deviations between the scan bodies (1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, and 1-6) and 3D mucosal deviations were established. The overall deviation was calculated as the mean of all linear deviations. "Trueness" represented the discrepancy between the test and reference files, while "precision" denoted the consistency among the test files. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analyses.Results: Significant overall linear discrepancies were noted among the SSLS, PG, and IOS groups (p < .001). SSLS showed the best overall trueness and precision (6.6, 5.7 mu m), followed by PG (58.4, 6.8 mu m) and IOS (214.6, 329.1 mu m). For the 3D mucosal deviation, the trueness (p < .001) and precision (p < .001) of the SSLS group were significantly better than those of the IOS group.Conclusions: The SSLS exhibited higher accuracy in determining the implant positions than the PG and IOS. Additionally, it demonstrated better accuracy in capturing the mucosa than IOS.
Effects of the intraoral scanner and implant library on the trueness of digital impressions in the full-arch implant scan: A comparative in vitro study

Uli Hauschild,Henriette Lerner,Paul Weigl,Tommaso Porrà,Oleg Admakin,Francesco Guido Mangano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.105336

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the effect of intraoral scanners (IOSs) and implant libraries (ILs) on the trueness of digital impressions for the fabrication of implant-supported full-arch (FA) prostheses. Methods: A stone cast of an edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and cylindrical scanbodies (IPD ProCam®, Matarò, Barcelona, Spain) was probed using a coordinate measuring machine to capture a reference model (RM). The cast was mounted on a mannequin and scanned with 3 different IOSs (iTERO Element 5D Plus®, Align Technologies, San José, CA, USA; IS 3800®, Dexis, Quackertown, PN, USA; and i-700®, Medit, Seoul, South Korea). Ten scans were performed by an experienced operator using each IOS, first capturing only the occlusal surfaces, then the buccal and finally the palatal surfaces (less than 45 s per scan). In each scan, the meshes of the SBs were replaced by the corresponding IL file, with and without increment, to obtain the best correction for the mesh growth. The positions of the SBs in each file were compared with those in the RM, to evaluate the linear and cross distances between them. The final outcome was the trueness of the different IOSs, evaluating the effect of using different ILs on the quality of the impressions. Results: Significant differences were found between the different IOS scans and the RM, and among the different IOSs, in the different segments. The correction of the mesh growth through incremental ILs did not affect the final trueness of the IOS scans. Conclusions: Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated, in the different scan segments, but with the cylindrical SBs used herein, the correction of the mesh growth with incremental ILs did not affect the final quality of the digital impressions. Statement of clinical relevance: There are still errors with IOS in the FA impressions. IOS have an effect on the quality of the digital impressions, and apparently the library has not, with purely cylindrical SBs: further studies are needed to confirm this aspect.
A new title and a new focus: Cellular Reprogramming.

I. Wilmut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/cell.2010.ED01

2010-02-11

Cellular Reprogramming

Abstract:
Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial

Ammar Ghanim Jasim,Mona Galal Abo Elezz,Gilan Y Altonbary,Moustafa Abdou Elsyad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cid.13336

Abstract:Objectives: This study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant-level conventional and digital impressions for atrophied maxillary ridges. Materials and methods: Twelve participants with atrophied edentulous maxillary ridges received six implants. Six months later and after soft tissue maturation around healing abutments, a control cast was constructed using the final passive restoration for each patient. Two types of implant-level impression techniques were carried out for each patient: (1) conventional (splinted open-tray) impression technique and (2) digital impression technique. For both techniques, scan bodies were labeled from the most distal implant on the left side (A, B, C, D, E, and F) and scanning was made. Accuracy of both techniques was measured using in vitro (two-dimensional and three-dimensional) and in vivo (clinical) methods. Two-dimensional methods include measurement of the difference in linear distances AB, AC AD, AE, and AF. Geomagic software was used to assess the three-dimensional deviation between the two impression techniques using the superimposition of standard tessellation language files. The incidence and percentage of nonpassive frameworks and framework misfits of final restorations for both types of impression techniques were assessed using the single screw test. Results: For all distances, digital impressions recorded significantly higher deviation from control measurements than conventional impressions. The highest two-dimensional linear deviation was noted for AF distance and the lowest difference was noted for AB distance. For all scan bodies, digital impressions recorded significantly higher three-dimensional deviation than conventional impressions. The highest three-dimensional deviation was noted with scan bodies C and D. Digital impressions recorded a significantly higher incidence of nonpassive frameworks and framework misfits than conventional impressions. [Correction added on 11 June 2024, after first online publication: In the preceding sentence, "digital impressions" was changed to "conventional impressions" in this version.] CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that the conventional implant-level impression technique showed greater in vitro and in vivo accuracy than the digital impression technique when used for full-arch maxillary fixed restorations on inclined implants.
Accuracy of Multi-Implant Impressions Using 3D-Printing Custom Trays and Splinting Versus Conventional Techniques for Complete Arches.

Yanping Liu,Ping Di,Yijiao Zhao,Qiang Hao,Jiehua Tian,Hongyan Cui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.7049

2019-01-01

The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants

Abstract:PURPOSE:To assess the three-dimensional (3D) accuracy of multi-implant impressions for complete arches obtained using 3D printing technology, and to determine the clinical feasibility of this approach by comparing the results obtained with those obtained with conventional impression techniques.MATERIALS AND METHODS:A maxillary model matrix with four implant analogs was used to fabricate 10 stone reference models (control) to simulate edentulous patients. Ten 3D-printed impressions were made using polylactic acid custom open trays with component splinting (3D-printed group). To make 10 conventional impressions of the reference models, the poly(methyl methacrylate) open trays with splinting technique was used (conventional group). Impressions were poured with a type IV dental stone, which had been digitalized utilizing a high-resolution laboratory scanner after connecting the polymer scan bodies. Standard tessellation language (STL) datasets from the two groups of stone models were superimposed with the corresponding reference models. The interimplant distances and interimplant angulations for each implant pair were measured for the reference models and for the two test groups' definitive models, to assess 3D deviations. In addition, the mechanical properties of polylactic acid and poly(methyl methacrylate) tray materials were compared by means of three-point loading and tensile bond tests. The Student t test was used to compare the differences in implant position and mechanical properties between the two groups, while implant angulations were analyzed with Wilcoxon's rank-sum test, at P = .05.RESULTS:There was less implant-position deviation for the 3D-printed group (mean ± SD: 56.37 ± 12.52 μm) than for the conventional group (71.94 ± 18.86 μm) (P = .014). No significant differences were found in angular deviation between the two groups (P > .05). Flexural strength results suggested that polylactic acid (112.7 ± 1.62 MPa) was stronger than poly(methyl methacrylate) (104.0 ± 2.17 MPa; P < .0001). The tensile bond strength of polylactic acid (0.07 ± 0.005 MPa) was higher than that of poly(methyl methacrylate) (0.03 ± 0.004 MPa; P < .0001).CONCLUSION:The 3D-printing multi-implant impression technique could be an alternative to conventional impression techniques for complete arches.
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:
Compression function based on permutations and quasigroups

Z. Pindar,Sapiee Jamel,Abdulkadir Hassan Disina,M. M. Deris

2016-11-01

Abstract:Cryptographic hash functions are used to protect the integrity of information. Hash functions are implemented in applications such as; Message Authentication Codes, pseudo random number generators and key derivation functions. Thus, this arguably suggests the need for continuous development of hash functions. Traditionally, hash functions are designed based on existing block ciphers due to challenges and difficulties faced in constructing new hash functions from the scratch. However, the key generation for each encryption process results to huge computational cost. In order to reduce computational cost, only a limited instantiations of the block cipher such as the permutations and boolean operators are used as the underlying compression functions. Few works have been proposed in developing a less computational cost but secure and efficient compression function. This paper proposes a different approach (PQ and 3PQ) in constructing compression function based on permutations and non-associative quasigroup. Analysis of experimentation results have demonstrated that the proposed compression functions are suitable for operation in constraints environments (both memory and processing power) with very minimal computational cost. Similarly, the obtained results also shows the proposed compression functions have an effective one-way function, strong avalanche property and easy to implement.
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.
In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study

Sonam Gupta,Aparna Ichalangod Narayan,Dhanasekar Balakrishnan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6306530

Abstract:Purpose. For a precise fit of multiple implant framework, having an accurate definitive cast is imperative. The present study evaluated dimensional accuracy of master casts obtained using different impression trays and materials with open tray impression technique. Materials and Methods. A machined aluminum reference model with four parallel implant analogues was fabricated. Forty implant level impressions were made. Eight groups (n = 5) were tested using impression materials (polyether and vinylsiloxanether) and four types of impression trays, two being custom (self-cure acrylic and light cure acrylic) and two being stock (plastic and metal). The interimplant distances were measured on master casts using a coordinate measuring machine. The collected data was compared with a standard reference model and was statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA. Results. Statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was found between the two impression materials. However, the difference seen was small (36 μm) irrespective of the tray type used. No significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed between varied stock and custom trays. Conclusions. The polyether impression material proved to be more accurate than vinylsiloxanether impression material. The rigid nonperforated stock trays, both plastic and metal, could be an alternative for custom trays for multi-implant impressions when used with medium viscosity impression materials.
Coordinate-based data analysis of the accuracy of five intraoral scanners for scanning completely dentate and partially edentulous mandibular arches

Xin Wang,Fang Zhang,Dan Ma,Xiaolan Ye,Xiaojuan Zheng,Ruifang Ren,Shizhu Bai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2024.01.009

IF: 4.148

2024-02-12

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Abstract:Statement of problem Current methods for assessing the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) that reduce errors and provide comprehensive data compared with previous methods are lacking. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to present a coordinate-based data analysis method to compare the accuracy of 5 IOSs for scanning completely dentate and partially edentulous casts. Material and methods Reference scans of 2 complete arch casts (completely and partially dentate) were digitized using a high-precision laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600). Each cast was scanned 10 times each using 5 IOSs (3Shape TRIOS 3, Planmeca Emerald, iTero Element 5D, Medit i500, and Shining Aoralscan 3). The dataset of all 10 test groups was analyzed by using a reverse engineering software program (Geomagic Wrap). Each test cast was aligned with the reference cast by 3-dimensional (3D) superimposition to determine the translation and rotation along the x-, y-, and z-axes. The dataset was analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and post hoc Bonferroni tests (α=.05). Results Significant differences were observed in all parameters among all scanners when scanning the same cast ( P <.05). Significant differences were observed in at least 1 parameter for all scanners, except Element 5D after scanning different casts using the same scanner. Deviations in the test data generally relocated toward the mesial, buccal, and apical sides, and the casts were almost always rotated clockwise around the y-axis and counterclockwise around the z-axis. For the completely dentate cast, among all IOSs, Element 5D demonstrated the highest accuracy in most of the measured parameters, specifically in the y-axis translation (0.06[0.07] mm), z-axis translation (0.08[0.05] mm), and y-axis rotation (0.21[0.16] degree) ( P <.05). For the partially edentulous cast, Element 5D displayed higher accuracy in most of the measured parameters, including the x-axis translation (0.11[0.14] mm) and z-axis rotation (0.12[0.18] degree) ( P <.05). Emerald also displayed higher accuracy in most of the measured parameters, including the y-axis translation (0.05[0.08] mm) and y-axis rotation (0.14[0.12] degree) ( P <.05). Element 5D exhibited no difference in the scanning accuracy between the 2 types of casts ( P >.05). Conclusions Element 5D offered a high level of accuracy and was an appropriate scanner for both situations. The method presented in this study provides a good assessment of accuracy deviations in complete arch scans using 3D coordinate-based data analysis.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine

[Discovery of EML4-ALK, a new gene responsible for lung cancer, and the development of molecular targeted therapy].

Accuracy of 2 direct digital scanning techniques-intraoral scanning and stereophotogrammetry-for complete arch implant-supported fixed prostheses: A prospective study

Comparison of Different Intraoral Scanners With Prefabricated Aid on Accuracy and Framework Passive Fit of Digital Complete-Arch Implant Impression: An In Vitro Study

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

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

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

Influence of connected and nonconnected calibrated frameworks on the accuracy of complete arch implant scans obtained by using four intraoral scanners, a desktop scanner, and a photogrammetry system

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

In vitro comparative study between complete arch conventional implant impressions and digital implant scans with scannable pick-up impression copings

Does intra‐oral scan improve the impression accuracy of full‐arch implant‐supported prostheses: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

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

Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions Using a Novel Structured Light Scanning System Assisted by a Planar Mirror in the Edentulous Maxilla: an in Vitro Study

Effects of the intraoral scanner and implant library on the trueness of digital impressions in the full-arch implant scan: A comparative in vitro study

A new title and a new focus: Cellular Reprogramming.

Accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillary full-arch screw-retained prosthesis: A crossover randomized trial

Accuracy of Multi-Implant Impressions Using 3D-Printing Custom Trays and Splinting Versus Conventional Techniques for Complete Arches.

An encompassing test for non-nested quantile regression models

Compression function based on permutations and quasigroups

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

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Different Types of Impression Trays and Impression Materials on the Accuracy of Open Tray Implant Impressions: A Pilot Study

Coordinate-based data analysis of the accuracy of five intraoral scanners for scanning completely dentate and partially edentulous mandibular arches