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:

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.
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
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)
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:
Molecular cloning, functional characterization and mRNA expression analysis of the murine chemokine receptor CCR6 and its specific ligand MIP‐3α 1

R. Varona,Á. Zaballos,J. Gutiérrez,P. Martín,F. Roncal,J. Albar,Carlos Ardavín,G. Marquez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-5793(98)01450-1

1998-11-27

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
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 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
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.
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:
A Monocephalus Diprosopus Fetus: Antenatal Sonographic Findings -

S. Kavak,E. Kavak,B. Coşkun,Raşit İlhan,Uğur Orak

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/MEDSCIENCE.2015.04.8277

Abstract:Monocephalus Diprosopus is the rarest form of conjoined twins. The etiology of this anomaly is stil obscure. We herein report a monocephalus diprosopus case that was diagnosed in week 19 of pregnancy was presented due to its rarity and the significance of its prenatal diagnosis. Recommended a pregnancy termination since it does not have a definitive treatment today, prenatal diagnosis made for such fetuses at an early stage bears importance in terms of lowering the severity of psychological trauma.
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
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 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
Digital Versus Radiographic Accuracy Evaluation of Guided Implant Surgery: an in Vitro Study

Chun Yi,Sha Li,Aonan Wen,Yong Wang,Yijiao Zhao,Yu Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-022-02585-5

2022-01-01

BMC Oral Health

Abstract:Background Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the most widely used method for postsurgical evaluation of the accuracy of guided implant surgery. However, the disadvantages of CBCT include radiation exposure, artifacts caused by metal implants, and high cost. Few studies have introduced a digital registration method to replace CBCT for evaluating the accuracy of guided surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare digital registration to conventional CBCT in terms of the capacity to evaluate the implant positioning accuracy of guided surgery. Materials and methods This in vitro study included 40 acrylic resin models with posterior single mandibular tooth loss. Guided surgery software was used to determine the optimal implant position; 40 tooth-supported fully guided drilling templates were designed and milled accordingly. After the guided surgery, the accuracies of the surgical templates were evaluated by conventional CBCT and digital registration. For evaluation by conventional CBCT, postsurgical CBCT scans of the resin models were performed. The CBCT data were reconstructed and superimposed on the implant planning data. For digital registration, we constructed a virtual registration unit that consisted of an implant replica and a scan body. Next, we obtained postsurgical optical scans of resin models with the scan body. The postsurgical implant position was identified by superimposition of the registration unit and optical scan data. The implant planning data and postsurgical implant position data were superimposed; deviations were reported in terms of distance for implant entry/apex point and in terms of angle for the implant axis. Interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland–Altman plots were used to analyze the agreement between the two evaluation methods. Results The ICCs between the two methods were 0.986, 0.993, and 0.968 for the entry point, apex point, and angle, respectively; all were significantly greater than 0.75 ( p < 0.001). Bland–Altman plots showed that the 95% limits of agreement of the differences were − 0.144 to + 0.081 mm, − 0.135 to + 0.147 mm, and − 0.451° to + 0.729° for the entry point, apex point, and angle, respectively; all values were within the maximum tolerated difference. Conclusion Conventional CBCT and digital registration showed good agreement in terms of evaluating the accuracy of implant positioning using tooth-supported surgical templates.
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.
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.
Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization

Jan-Frederik Güth,Cornelius Runkel,Florian Beuer,Michael Stimmelmayr,Daniel Edelhoff,Christine Keul

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1902-4

2016-07-12

Clinical Oral Investigations

Abstract:ObjectivesDirect and indirect digitalization offer two options for computer-aided design (CAD)/ computer-aided manufacturing (CAM)-generated restorations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of different intraoral scanners and compare them to the process of indirect digitalization.Material and methodA titanium testing model was directly digitized 12 times with each intraoral scanner: (1) CS 3500 (CS), (2) Zfx Intrascan (ZFX), (3) CEREC AC Bluecam (BLU), (4) CEREC AC Omnicam (OC) and (5) True Definition (TD). As control, 12 polyether impressions were taken and the referring plaster casts were digitized indirectly with the D-810 laboratory scanner (CON). The accuracy (trueness/precision) of the datasets was evaluated by an analysing software (Geomagic Qualify 12.1) using a “best fit alignment” of the datasets with a highly accurate reference dataset of the testing model, received from industrial computed tomography.ResultsDirect digitalization using the TD showed the significant highest overall “trueness”, followed by CS. Both performed better than CON. BLU, ZFX and OC showed higher differences from the reference dataset than CON. Regarding the overall “precision”, the CS 3500 intraoral scanner and the True Definition showed the best performance. CON, BLU and OC resulted in significantly higher precision than ZFX did.ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, the accuracy of the ascertained datasets was dependent on the scanning system. The direct digitalization was not superior to indirect digitalization for all tested systems.Clinical relevanceRegarding the accuracy, all tested intraoral scanning technologies seem to be able to reproduce a single quadrant within clinical acceptable accuracy. However, differences were detected between the tested systems.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine
Accuracy of Three Digital Scanning Methods for Complete-Arch Tooth Preparation: an in Vitro Comparison

Hanqi Gao,Xiaoqiang Liu,Mingyue Liu,Xu Yang,Jianguo Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.01.029

2022-01-01

Abstract:Statement of problem. The accuracy of digital scanning for complete dental arch and implant-supported complete-arch restorations has been reported. However, research addressing the accuracy of digital scanning methods for complete-arch tooth preparation is lacking. Purpose. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning, impression scanning, and cast scanning for complete-arch preparation.Material and methods. Maxillary and mandibular jaw typodonts with 28 teeth prepared for complete crowns were used as reference casts and digitized as reference data sets with a desktop scanner. Three digital scanning methods were applied. First, the reference casts were each scanned 10 times with an intraoral scanner to generate the intraoral scanning group data sets. Second, the reference casts were each captured 10 times by using polyvinyl siloxane impression material, and the impressions were scanned with a desktop scanner to generate the impression scanning group data sets. Third, the impressions obtained in the impression scanning group were used to make gypsum casts which were then digitized with a desktop scanner to generate the cast scanning group data sets. Accuracy was determined by trueness and precision. Three-dimensional deviations of the prepared arches and anterior and posterior segments were measured from root mean square values and depicted on color-difference maps. Differences among test groups were analyzed by using a 1-way ANOVA and the post hoc Bonferroni test for normally distributed data or the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction for non-normally distributed data (a=.05).Results. The trueness of the maxillary arch was significantly higher in the impression scanning group than in the cast scanning and intraoral scanning groups (P<.05), but no significant differences were found among the 3 groups of the mandibular arch (P>.05). The precision of both arches was significantly higher in the impression scanning and intraoral scanning groups than in the cast scanning group (P<.05). Color maps showed horizontal symmetrical displacement in the intraoral scanning group relative to the reference data sets and within-group unilateral distal-end distortion. Irregular arch deformations were noted in the impression scanning group, and buccal and occlusal expansion occurred in the anterior-posterior direction in the cast scanning group. Pooled data for anterior teeth indicated that the trueness was lowest in the intraoral scanning group; however, that for the maxillary anterior teeth did not differ, while that for the mandibular anterior teeth differed significantly among groups (P<.05). For the posterior teeth, deviation was the lowest in the impression scanning group, and significant differences were noted in both arches among the 3 groups (P<.05).Conclusions. Of the methods tested, impression scanning was the most accurate for the creation of a digital cast of a complete prepared arch. (J Prosthet Dent 2022;128:1001-8)
Influence of the number of scan bodies on full-arch implant scanning: A comparison of 2 vs 4 implants

Aly Abdelrehim,Nosizana Mohd Salleh,Hazrina Sofian,Eshamsul Sulaiman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1563/aaid-joi-d-23-00063

2024-02-15

Journal of Oral Implantology

Abstract:Accuracy is a necessity in implant impressions to fabricate accurately fitting implant-supported prostheses. This in vitro study aimed to explore the impact of the number of scan bodies on scanning quality by comparing scans of 2 versus 4 implants, and to determine if their accuracy and precision meets acceptable clinical threshold. Two mandibular edentulous models were used: one with 4-parallel implants (4-IM) and the other with 2-parallel implants (2-IM). Each model was scanned ten times with an intraoral scanner, while reference scans were obtained with a high-precision laboratory scanner. The accuracy of test scans was evaluated by superimposing them onto reference scans and measuring 3D and angular deviations of the scan bodies. To assess the precision, the repeatability of the scans was analyzed by measuring the 3D standard deviations. Independent t-test was used to compare angular deviations, the Mann-Whitney U test was used for 3D deviations and 3D standard deviations, and one sample t-test was used for comparing means to the clinical threshold. Angular and 3D deviations were statistically not significant between the two groups (P=0.054 and 0.143). 3D deviation values were higher than the 150 μm threshold for 2-IM (201 μm) and 4-IM (290 μm); angular deviation in 2-IM was 0.600 degrees and 0.885 degrees for 4-IM. There was no statistically significant difference in the precision of scans between the two groups. (P=0.161). Although scanning quality improved when 2 scan bodies were used, the difference was not statistically significant. Moreover, full-arch implant scanning did not meet acceptable levels of accuracy and precision.

dentistry, oral surgery & medicine

On Ramsey numbers for linear forests

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

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

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

An encompassing test for non-nested quantile regression models

Molecular cloning, functional characterization and mRNA expression analysis of the murine chemokine receptor CCR6 and its specific ligand MIP‐3α 1

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

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

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

Dating Geomagnetic Polarity Epochs in Réunion

A Monocephalus Diprosopus Fetus: Antenatal Sonographic Findings -

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

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

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

Digital Versus Radiographic Accuracy Evaluation of Guided Implant Surgery: an in Vitro Study

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

Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization

Accuracy of Three Digital Scanning Methods for Complete-Arch Tooth Preparation: an in Vitro Comparison

Influence of the number of scan bodies on full-arch implant scanning: A comparison of 2 vs 4 implants