Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners

Adolfo Di Fiore; Roberto Meneghello; Lorenzo Graiff; Gianpaolo Savio; Paolo Vigolo; Carlo Monaco; Edoardo Stellini

doi:10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002

Full arch digital scanning systems performances for implant-supported fixed dental prostheses: a comparative study of 8 intraoral scanners

J Prosthodont Res. 2019 Oct;63(4):396-403. doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002. Epub 2019 May 7.

Authors

Adolfo Di Fiore¹, Roberto Meneghello², Lorenzo Graiff³, Gianpaolo Savio⁴, Paolo Vigolo³, Carlo Monaco⁵, Edoardo Stellini⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Neuroscience, Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. Electronic address: adolfo.difiore@unipd.it.
² Departments of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
³ Department of Neuroscience, Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
⁴ Departments of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
⁵ Division of Prosthodontics and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
⁶ Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.

PMID: 31072730
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2019.04.002

Abstract

Purpose: Compare the accuracy of intraoral digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis acquired with eight different intraoral scanner (Ios).

Methods: A polymethyl methacrylate acrylic model of an edentulous mandible with six scan-abutment was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Eight different Ios were used to generate digital impression: True Definition, Trios, Cerec Omnicam, 3D progress, CS3500, CS3600, Planmeca Emelard and Dental Wings. Fifteen digital impressions were made. A software called "Scan-abut" was developed to analyse and compare the digital impression with the master model, obtaining the scanning accuracy. The three-dimensional (3D) position and distance analysis were performed.

Results: Mean value of the 3D position analysis showed that the True Definition (31 μm ± 8 μm) and Trios (32 μm ± 5 μm) have the best performance of the group. The Cerec Omnicam (71 μm ± 55 μm), CS3600 (61 μm ± 14 μm) have an average performance. The CS3500 (107 μm ± 28 μm) and Planmeca Emelard (101 μm ± 38 μm) present a middle-low performance, while the 3D progress (344 μm ± 121 μm) and Dental Wings (148 μm ± 64 μm) show the low performance. The 3D distance analysis showed a good linear relationship between the errors and scan-abutment distance only with the True Definition and CS3600.

Conclusions: Not all scanners are suitable for digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and the weight of the output files is independent from the accuracy of the Ios.

Keywords: Accuracy; Dental implant; Digital impression; Full arch; Intraoral scanner.

MeSH terms

Computer-Aided Design
Dental Impression Technique*
Dental Prosthesis Design
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Models, Dental*