Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience
The Journal Of Prosthetic Dentistry
Abstract
Statement of problem
The
intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an
inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of
scan bodies.
Purpose
The
purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral
scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an
edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator
experience.
Material and methods
The
maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a
reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8
by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit
i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was
measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment.
Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model
(α=.05).
Results
After
complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant
platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25
μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P<.001) for all
scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were
found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The
experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm
versus 54 ±3.1 μm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 μm versus 57 ±3.6 μm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 μm), i500 (57 ±3.6 μm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 μm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 μm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 μm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 μm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 μm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 μm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 μm, P=.141) for the experienced operators.
Conclusions
Mucosal
alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral
scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant
scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the
edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.
Comments