Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


Aug12_RATHI_Thesis PDF.pdf (2.83 MB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Comparing the Accuracy of Intra-Oral Scanners for Implant Level Impressions Using Different Scanable Abutments

Rathi, Nakul H
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1407200647

Abstract Details

2014, Master of Science, Ohio State University, Dentistry.
Purpose: This study was conducted to find the accuracy of digital intra-oral scanners (IOS) for fabricating computer aided designing (CAD)-computer aided manufacturing (CAM) implant supported prosthesis. The different IOS available have different technologies for data acquisition and processing. The IOS tested were 3M™True Definition Scanner (3M ESPE, St.Paul, MN), iTero (AlignTechnologies, San-Jose, CA) and 3Shape Trios (3Shape Dental, Copenhagen, Denmark). The two scannable abutments tested were Encode® Healing Abutments (Bellatek, Biomet3i, West PalmBeach, FL)[ENC] and Zirkonzahn scan marker (Zirkonzahn.Modellier, Gais, Italy)[ZRZ]. The aim of the study is to check the accuracy of three IOS systems, for making virtual impressions for dental implants using two scannable abutments and two different implant angulations (Parallel and 30° angulation) to fabricate an implant supported bar. Materials and Methods: A stereolithographic replica of a human mandible, with teeth #21 to #28 present, was fabricated. Posterior segments were edentulous. Four Full Osseotite® Certain implants (Biomet3i, West PalmBeach, FL) were placed in the posterior, 2 on each side; the implants on one side were parallel to each other and the implants on the other side diverged by 30°. This model was digitized using a high-definition laboratory scanner (reference scanner, Sirona inEosX5, Salzburg, Austria) with two different scan bodies, ENC and ZRZ. 3Shape Design software was used to CAD the control and test bars. IOS were made using three different intraoral scanners and similar bars were designed. A total of 36 test CAD bars were compared with 4 control bars. Digital files of the bars were loaded into 3D evaluation software (Geomagic DesignX™2013, Morrisville, USA). A virtual `one-screw test’ was done using “Global, Fine, Partial” alignment method in the software. For the alignment, centers of the abutment bases were not more than 5µ away and the data points of alignment had more than 95% superimposition. After the `one screw alignment’ was achieved, gap height measurements (in µ) were made on the other side. The planar angle difference was measured and the final volume measurement was derived from the gap height and angular difference. The calculated differences (mm³) were analyzed using a repeated-measures muiltifactorial ANOVA and Tukey-test, with an alpha level=0.05, with a non-directional alpha risk of 0.05. Post-hoc comparison was done showing all the possible combination of the variable types. Four actual CAD bars were milled through the CAM process and compared to the digital analysis. Results: The CAD-CAM prosthesis from the intra-oral scans had a misfit range of 12.40 µ to 90.20 µ all of which remained in the clinically acceptable range. None of the three intra-oral scanners tested were more accurate than the others under all conditions. (p=0.0781). Neither of the scannable abutments allowed more accurate implant impression than the other under all testing conditions. (p=0.5363) Neither parallel nor angled implants allowed for more accurate impression than the others under all testing conditions (p=0.3173). Actual bars milled from CAD files showed similar degree of misfit to the virtual data. Conclusions: a. Geomagic Design X software analysis showed a similar virtual misfit to the actual physical misfit observed in fabricated milled bars, therefore the virtual one-screw test and design analysis of dental CAD-CAM prosthesis is a viable alternative for research in this area. b. The study suggests that digital intra-oral scanner impressions can be used for fabricating accurate short-span screw retained implant supported fixed dental prosthesis. (Misfit range of 12.40 to 90.20 microns) c. None of the three intra-oral scanners tested, 3M LAVA True Definition, 3Shape Trios and Cadent iTero were more accurate than the others under all conditions (p=0.0731).
Edwin McGlumphy, DDS, MS (Advisor)
Burak Yilmaz, DDS, PhD (Committee Member)
Robert Seghi, DDS, MS (Committee Member)
Hua-Hong Chien, DDS, PhD (Committee Member)
66 p.
Dentistry; Engineering; Technology
dental implant impression; accuracy of digital impression; intra oral scanning; CAD CAM; scan abutments; virtual prosthesis planning; virtual testing; geomagic

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Rathi, N. H. (2014). Comparing the Accuracy of Intra-Oral Scanners for Implant Level Impressions Using Different Scanable Abutments [Master's thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1407200647

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Rathi, Nakul. Comparing the Accuracy of Intra-Oral Scanners for Implant Level Impressions Using Different Scanable Abutments. 2014. Ohio State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1407200647.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Rathi, Nakul. "Comparing the Accuracy of Intra-Oral Scanners for Implant Level Impressions Using Different Scanable Abutments." Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 2014. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1407200647

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1407200647
11,276
© 2014, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.