The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study.

Yilmaz, Burak; Gouveia, Diogo; Rizzo Marques, Vinicius; Diker, Emre; Schimmel, Martin; Abou-Ayash, Samir (2021). The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study. Journal of dentistry, 110, p. 103684. Elsevier Science 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103684

[img]
Preview
Text
1-s2.0-S0300571221001056-main.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND).

Download (3MB) | Preview

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions and intraoral scans when a healing abutment-scanpeg system (HASP) or a conventional scanbody (CSB) was used on a single implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary model with an implant (4.0 × 11 mm) (Neoss) and a CSB or an HASP (Neoss) was scanned by using a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600; Amann Girrbach) (reference scans) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 3) (n = 10). PVS open-tray impressions were also made and stone casts of the model with a CSB were digitized with the laboratory scanner. Intraoral scanner and cast scans were superimposed to their reference scans. On superimposed scans, points were selected on HASP and CSB to calculate distance deviations (at points 1-4) and angular deviations (at points 5 and 6 on CSB and PVS, and 5-8 on HASP) between scans (trueness), and their variation (precision). The deviation data was analyzed with ANOVA and pairwise comparisons (trueness) with Tukey's adjustment, and F-tests (precision).

RESULTS

At point 1, PVS had lower trueness than CSB (difference in means (DIMs) = 0.184 mm, p = 0.006) and HASP (DIMs = 0.122 mm, p = 0.042). At point 3, CSB had higher trueness than HASP (DIMs = 0.134 mm, p = 0.001). Angular deviations with PVS were higher than with CSB (DIMs = 0.6°, p = 0.013) and HASP (DIMs = 0.7°, p = 0.005). CSB had higher precision than PVS (p < 0.05). HASP had higher precision than PVS for distance (Point 1)(p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p < 0.05). Deviation differences within the HASP parts were not significant.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of intraoral scans and PVS impressions of an implant was similar.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The combined healing abutment-scanpeg system and the conventional scanbody can be recommended for scans of anterior single implants with the intraoral scanner used.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Reconstructive Dentistry and Gerodontology
04 Faculty of Medicine > School of Dental Medicine > Department of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry

UniBE Contributor:

Yilmaz, Burak; Rizzo-Marques, Vinicius; Schimmel, Martin and Abou-Ayash, Samir

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health

ISSN:

0300-5712

Publisher:

Elsevier Science

Language:

English

Submitter:

Tina Lauper

Date Deposited:

16 Jun 2021 16:55

Last Modified:

17 Jun 2021 01:34

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103684

PubMed ID:

33961938

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Accuracy Healing abutment Precision Scanbody Scanpeg Trueness

BORIS DOI:

10.48350/156453

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/156453

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback