Abdou M, et al. Yonsei Med J. 2022 Oct;63(10):927-932. https://doi.org/10.3349/ymj.2022.0163

Accuracy of implant position reproduction according to various types of scanners, implant placement depths, and tooth positions are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant position reproduction for differences in the exposed length of the implant scan body according to scanner type and tooth position. Implants were placed at the positions of the lateral incisor, first premolar, and first molar in the study model at the bone level and submerged 1.5 mm, 3.0 mm, 4.5 mm, and 6.0 mm. The completed models were scanned with one type of tabletop scanner and three types of intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, i500, and CS3600). A matching process was performed for all scan data to superimpose abutment library data on the scan body, and the root mean square errors were analyzed in three dimensions to evaluate the position reproducibility of the replaced abutment library. In the trueness analysis, the error increased rapidly for an implant placement depth of 4.5 mm, and was largest for a submersion of 6.0 mm. The precision analysis confirmed that the error increased for depths of at least 3.0 mm. The analysis by position identified that the accuracy was lowest for an implant placed at the position of the lateral incisor. These findings indicate that special care is required when making an impression of a deep implant with an optical scanner.

This study investigated the trueness of a digital implant impression according to the orientation of the implant scan body (ISB) and the scanning method. With the flat surface of the ISB facing either the buccal or proximal direction, the ISB was scanned using one tabletop scanner (T500) and three types of intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3, CS3600, and i500). The effects of differences in the scanning method and ISB orientation were assessed. Postalignment data were subsequently obtained with the abutments generated using a digital library, and superimposed with reference data using a best-fit algorithm, followed by root-mean-square error (RMSE) analysis. The RMSE was lower in the buccal groups (28.15 ± 8.87 μm, mean ± SD) than in the proximal groups (31.94 ± 8.95 μm, p = 0.031), and lower in the full-scan groups (27.92 ± 10.80 μm) than in the partial-scan groups (32.16 ± 6.35 μm, p = 0.016). When using the tabletop scanner, the trueness was higher when the ISB was connected buccally (14.34 ± 0.89 μm) than when it was connected proximally (29.35 ± 1.15 μm, p < 0.001). From the findings of this study it can be concluded that the operator should connect the ISB so that its flat surface faces the buccal direction, and attempt to scan all areas. Additionally, it is advantageous to connect an ISB buccally when using a tabletop scanner.