Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Oct 20;12(20):6644.
doi: 10.3390/jcm12206644.

The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study

Asaf Shely  1 , Diva Lugassy  2 , Ophir Rosner  1 , Eran Zanziper  1 , Joseph Nissan  1 , Shir Rachmiel  1 , Yara Khoury  1 , Gil Ben-Izhack  1
Affiliations

The Influence of Laboratory Scanner versus Intra-Oral Scanner on Determining Axes and Distances between Three Implants in a Straight Line by Using Two Different Intraoral Scan Bodies: A Pilot In Vitro Study

Asaf Shely et al. J Clin Med. .

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the inter-implant distance, inter-implant axis, and intra-implant axis of three implants in a straight line by using a laboratory scanner (LBS) versus an intra-oral scanner (IOS) with two different intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs).

Methods: A 3D model was printed with internal hex implant analogs of three implants in positions 15#, 16#, and 17#. Two standard intra-oral scan bodies (ISBs) were used: MIS ISB (two-piece titanium) and Zirkonzhan ISB (two-piece titanium). Both ISBs were scanned using 7 Series dental wings (LBS) and 30 times using Primescan (IOS). For each scan, a stereolithography (STL) file was created and a comparison between all the scans was performed through superimposition of the STL files by using 3D analysis software (PolyWorks® 2020; InnovMetric, Québec, QC, Canada). A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was performed followed by a Mann-Whitney test (p < 0.05).

Results: The change in inter-implant distance for the MIS ISB was significantly lower compared to the ZZ (p < 0.05). The change in intra-implant angle was significantly lower for the ZZ ISB compared to MIS (p < 0.05). The changes in inter-implant angle between the mesial and middle and between the middle and distal were significantly lower for MIS compared to ZZ in contrast to mesial to distal, which was significantly higher (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Both ISBs showed differences in all the parameters between the LBS and the IOS. The geometry of the scan abutment had an impact on the inter-implant distance as the changes in the inter-implant distance were significantly lower for the MIS ISB. The changes in the intra-implant angle were significantly lower for the ZZ ISB. There is a need for further research examining the influence of geometry, material, and scan abutment parts on the trueness.

Keywords: CAD-CAM; CEREC; ISB; Primescan; dental implants; implant axis; intra-oral scanner; laboratory scanner; oral rehabilitation; scan abutment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Three MIS ISBs in place of teeth 15, 16, 17. (b) Three ZZ ISBs in place of teeth 15, 16, 17.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(a) ZZ upper plane, cylinder, axis, central point, side plane, and sideline. (b) MIS upper plane, cylinder, axis, central point, side plane, and sideline. (c) ZZ inter-implant distance. (d) MIS inter-implant distance.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(a) ZZ intra-implant angle and inter-implant angle (delta axes). (b) MIS intra-implant angle and inter-implant angle (delta axes).
Figure 4
Figure 4
(a) ZZ x, y, z axes. (b) MIS x, y, z axes.
Figure 5
Figure 5
The mean inter-implant distance error and ±SD for both ZZ and MIS.
Figure 6
Figure 6
The mean intra-implant distance (central points 1, 2, 3) error and ±SD for ZZ and MIS.
Figure 7
Figure 7
The mean intra-implant angle and inter-implant angle (delta axes 1, 2, 3 and delta-axes 12, 23, 13) error and ±SD for ZZ and MIS.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Afrashtehfar K.I., Alnakeb N.A., Assery M.K.M. Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners versus Traditional Impressions: A Rapid Umbrella Review. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2022;22:101719. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2022.101719. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rosenstiel S.F., Land M.F. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. Elsevier Health Sciences; St. Louis, MO, USA: 2015.
    1. Mangano F., Gandolfi A., Luongo G., Logozzo S. Intraoral scanners in dentistry: A review of the current literature. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:149. doi: 10.1186/s12903-017-0442-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Siqueira R., Galli M., Chen Z., Mendonça G., Meirelles L., Wang H.L., Chan H.L. Intraoral scanning reduces procedure time and improves patient comfort in fixed prosthodontics and implant dentistry: A systematic review. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021;25:6517–6531. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04157-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arezoobakhsh A., Shayegh S.S., Jamali Ghomi A., Hakimaneh S.M.R. Comparison of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit zirconia frameworks fabricated with CAD-CAM technology using direct and indirect digital scans. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2020;123:105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2018.10.023. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources