Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

The accuracy of different digital impression techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported reconstructions

Mizumoto, Ryan M
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1530005688900126

Abstract Details

2018, Master of Science, Ohio State University, Dentistry.
Statement of problem. While the accuracy of digital implant impressions in single unit and short span situations has been demonstrated, the effect of various scan bodies and scan techniques on the accuracy and scan time in completely edentulous situations is not well understood. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of 4 different scanning techniques and 5 different commercially available intraoral scan bodies on the trueness (distance and angular deviation), precision (variance amongst the scans) and scan time in a completely edentulous situation with 4 implants. Materials and Methods. Five different intraoral scan body systems were evaluated: AF ( IO-Flo, Atlantis Denstply Implants), NT (Nt-Trading GmbH & Co. KG), DE (Dess-USA), C3D (Core3Dcentres NA), and ZI (Zimmer Biomet Dental), and 4 different scanning techniques were evaluated: unmodified master model (NO), glass fiduciary markers placed on the edentulous ridge (GB), pressure indicating paste brushed over the ridge and palate (PP), and floss tied between the scan bodies (FL). Five identical polyurethane edentulous maxillary models with 4 parallel dental implant analogs (TSV 4.1, Zimmer Biomet Dental) in the first molar and canine positions. The scan bodies were attached to the models and the entire surface was scanned using a calibrated structured blue light industrial scanner (Carl Zeiss Optotechnik GmbH) to generate a master reference model. Five consecutive digital impressions were made of the model using an intraoral scanner (Trios, 3Shape A/S) and 1 of the 4 techniques (n=5) assigned at random. The test scans were superimposed over the master reference model using a best fit algorithm, and then the distance deviation and angular deviation of the scan bodies was calculated. Scan time was also recorded. A two-factor ANOVA was used to examine the effect of scan body and technique on the trueness and on scan time, with subsequent Tukey or Bonferroni-corrected Student’s t-tests. Precision was evaluated by tests for homogeneity of the variances between groups. An alpha level of 0.05 was used for all statistical tests. Reliability for the entire study was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Results. The overall reliability of the study according to intraclass correlations was 0.999. In terms of trueness, no statistically significant interaction was found between the effects of scan body and technique on the distance deviation (F=1.28, P=.246), however, scan body (P=.031) and technique (P=.001) each had a significant effect independently. A statistically significant interaction was found between the effects of scan body and technique on angular deviation (F= 4.31, P=<.001). Testing for the homogeneity of variances demonstrated significant differences between the precision of the groups in terms of both distance deviation (P=.013) and angular deviation (P=.003). No statistically significant interaction was found between the effects of scan body and technique (F=1.73, P=.076) on scan time, however, scan body alone was found to have a significant effect (P<.0001). Conclusions. The accuracy (trueness and precision) of complete-arch digital implant impressions using ISBs were affected by both the scan body and scan technique when using an intraoral scanning system. The ZI scan body had significantly less distance deviation while splinting scan bodies with floss led to significantly more distance deviation. The scan techniques with different surface modifications was not found to improve scan accuracy. Use of different ISBs led to significant differences in scan time.
Burak Yilmaz, DDS, PhD (Advisor)
Edwin McGlumphy, DDS, MS (Committee Member)
Jeremy Seidt, PhD (Committee Member)
William Johnston, MS, PhD (Committee Member)
31 p.
Dentistry
dentistry; dental implants; digital dentistry; digital impressions; intraoral scan bodies; scan bodies; intraoral scanner

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Mizumoto, R. M. (2018). The accuracy of different digital impression techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported reconstructions [Master's thesis, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1530005688900126

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Mizumoto, Ryan. The accuracy of different digital impression techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported reconstructions. 2018. Ohio State University, Master's thesis. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1530005688900126.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Mizumoto, Ryan. "The accuracy of different digital impression techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported reconstructions." Master's thesis, Ohio State University, 2018. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1530005688900126

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1530005688900126
3,277
© 2018, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.