The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions when compared to conventional impressions, when performed on the abutment or implant level. Methods: One resin cast with six implants and another cast with six abutments were scanned with Primescan v5.1 (PS51), Primescan v5.2 (PS52), Trios 3 (T3), and Trios 4 (T4). Additionally, conventional impressions (A) were made, poured in gypsum, and digitized using a lab scanner (IScan D104i). A coordinate machine (Atos, GOM, Braunschweig, Germany) was used to generate the reference scan of both casts. For all scans, the position of the implants was calculated and matched with the reference scan. Angular and coronal measurements per implant were considered for trueness and precision. Results: For the implant-level model, PS52 performed significantly better in terms of trueness and precision compared to all other impressions, except for the angular trueness of A (p = 0.072) and the coronal trueness of PS51 (p = 1.000). For the abutment-level model, PS52 also performed significantly better than all other impressions, except for the coronal trueness and precision of A (p = 1.000). Conclusions: Digital impressions for full-arch implant supported prostheses can be as accurate as conventional impressions, depending on the intra-oral scanner and software. Overall, abutment level impressions were more accurate compared to implant level impressions.

Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the accuracy of implant position using mucosal supported surgical guides, produced by a desktop 3D printer. Methods: Ninety implants (Bone Level Roxolid, 4.1 mm × 10 mm, Straumann, Villerat, Switzerland) were placed in fifteen mandibular casts (Bonemodels, Castellón de la Plana, Spain). A mucosa-supported guide was designed and printed for each of the fifteen casts. After placement of the implants, the location was assessed by scanning the cast and scan bodies with an intra-oral scanner (Primescan^®, Dentsply Sirona, York, PA, USA). Two comparisons were performed: one with the mucosa as a reference, and one where only the implants were aligned. Angular, coronal and apical deviations were measured. Results: The mean implant angular deviation for tissue and implant alignment were 3.25° (SD 1.69°) and 2.39° (SD 1.42°) respectively, the coronal deviation 0.82 mm (SD 0.43 mm) and 0.45 mm (SD 0.31 mm) and the apical deviation 0.99 mm (SD 0.45 mm) and 0.71 mm (SD 0.43 mm). All three variables were significantly different between the tissue and implant alignment (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, we conclude that guided implant surgery using desktop 3D printed mucosa-supported guides has a clinically acceptable level of accuracy. The resilience of the mucosa has a negative effect on the guide stability and increases the deviation in implant position.

This article presents a novel complete-arch pillar system (CAPS) to register implant position and maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit for implant-supported fixed complete dental prostheses (IFCDPs). The novel system presents a 3-unit toolset comprising intraoral scan bodies (ISBs), lateral pillar attachments (LPAs) and occlusal pillar attachments (OPAs). A 2-stage single visit workflow by an intraoral scanner (Trios 5) was introduced. The first stage "Screw-Scan-Done" was used to describe complete-arch intraoral implant scanning using LPAs. The second stage "Screw-Occlude-Done" involved virtual occlusal recording using OPAs. Two patients with one single edentulous arch were selected for this study. In the first patient, 6 bone level implants (Bone Level Tapered, Straumann) were placed in the edentulous maxilla at positions 12, 14, 16, 22, 24 and 26. In the second patient, 4 bone level implants (NobelActive CC, Nobel Biocare) were placed in the edentulous mandible at positions 32, 35, 42 and 45. A CAD-CAM procedure was initiated with the acquired IOS data to fabricate an interim IFCDP at the same day. Periapical radiographs were obtained of the implant-prosthetic connection of the definitive IFCDPs to verify the passive fit. Metrology software (Geomagic Qualify, 3D Systems - Matlab, Mathworks) was used to assess the implant analogs position in the 3D-printed casts used for fabricating the definitive IFCDPs. A quantitative occlusal relationship analysis was performed with IOS. Radiographic examination revealed no gaps at implant-prosthetic connection of the definitive IFCDPs. The 3D-printed casts showed an overall average distance deviation within the clinically acceptable range of errors of 150 µm. Quantitative occlusal relationship analysis with IOS showed well-distributed contacts. Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions can be drawn: (1) A 3-unit toolset with ISBs, LPAs and OPAs allows to register the implant position and maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit; (2) the 2-stage clinical workflow with the CAPS system facilitates the IOS data acquisition for fabrication of an interim IFCDP at the same day; (3) a passive fit was demonstrated for the interim and the definitive IFCDPs. The CAPS system can help clinicians to register the implant position and the maxillomandibular relationship in one single visit for the fabrication of an IFCDP.

Objective: Information about full-digital protocols for bite registration with intraoral scanners on multiple implants in the edentulous jaw is scarce. The purpose of this comparative in vivo study was to investigate the reliability and time efficiency of a novel full-digital bite registration technique for the manufacture of full-arch maxillary fixed implant prostheses. Material and methods: In ten patients, a full-arch maxillary fixed implant prosthesis was manufactured on multi-unit abutment level through an analog prosthetic workflow. The bite registration was performed with use of a screw-retained polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) verification jig with detachable wax rim. To articulate the definitive edentulous maxillary implant cast in centric relation at the appropriate occlusal vertical dimension (OVD) to the mandibular antagonist cast, a type II articulator (Artex, Amann Girrbach) was used. Three to six months later, a full-digital bite registration was performed with use of dual-function scan bodies and bilateral connected bite pillars. The bite pillars screwed into the scan bodies were used to adjust and articulate the edentulous maxillary implant arch to the mandibular antagonist arch at the defined OVD. Treatment time for analog and digital bite registration technique was measured in each patient. The reliability of the digital bite registration technique was evaluated by 3D comparison of two sets of stereo lithographic (STL) files obtained from each patient. The three-dimensional deviation was defined along the X-, Y- and Z-axes (Geomagic Control X, 3D Systems Inc., Rock Hill, SC, USA). Results: The treatment time for digital bite registration using dual-function scan bodies and bite pillars was significantly shorter than analog bite registration with verification jig and wax rim (60.30%, SD 5.72%). Minor differences between the two techniques were observed with a linear deviation range of 1115 µm (SD 668 µm) overall, 46.2 µm (SD 731.3 µm) along the X-axis, −200.3 µm (SD 744.3 µm) along the Y-axis and 67.1 µm (SD 752.2 µm) along the Z-axis. Bilateral balanced contacts were registered in all patients during full-digital bite registration. Conclusions: The novel digital bite registration technique with dual-function scan bodies and bite pillars allows for a full-digital workflow for full-arch implant supported restorations. The digital bite workflow was 60% faster, and the overall deviation was around 1 mm, which can be considered clinically acceptable.