Until now, a few studies have addressed the accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs) in implantology. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess the accuracy of 5 different IOSs in the impressions of single and multiple implants, and to compare them. Plaster models were prepared, representative of a partially edentulous maxilla (PEM) to be restored with a single crown (SC) and a partial prosthesis (PP), and a totally edentulous maxilla (TEM) to be restored with a full-arch (FA). These models were scanned with a desktop scanner, to capture reference models (RMs), and with 5 IOSs (CS 3600®, Trios3®, Omnicam®, DWIO®, Emerald®); 10 scans were taken for each model, using each IOS. All IOS datasets were loaded into a reverse-engineering software where they were superimposed on the corresponding RMs, to evaluate trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to determine precision. A statistical analysis was performed. In the SC, CS 3600® had the best trueness (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), followed by Trios3® (22.3 ± 0.5 μm), DWIO® (27.8 ± 3.2 μm), Omnicam® (28.4 ± 4.5 μm), Emerald® (43.1 ± 11.5 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best trueness (23 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (28.5 ± 0.5 μm), Omnicam® (38.1 ± 8.8 μm), Emerald® (49.3 ± 5.5 μm), DWIO® (49.8 ± 5 μm). In the FA, CS 3600® had the best trueness (44.9 ± 8.9 μm), followed by Trios3® (46.3 ± 4.9 μm), Emerald® (66.3 ± 5.6 μm), Omnicam® (70.4 ± 11.9 μm), DWIO® (92.1 ± 24.1 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in trueness was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). In the SC, CS 3600® had the best precision (11.3 ± 1.1 μm), followed by Trios3® (15.2 ± 0.8 μm), DWIO® (27.1 ± 10.7 μm), Omnicam® (30.6 ± 3.3 μm), Emerald® (32.8 ± 10.7 μm). In the PP, CS 3600® had the best precision (17 ± 2.3 μm), followed by Trios3® (21 ± 1.9 μm), Emerald® (29.9 ± 8.9 μm), DWIO® (34.8 ± 10.8 μm), Omnicam® (43.2 ± 9.4 μm). In the FA, Trios3® had the best precision (35.6 ± 3.4 μm), followed by CS 3600® (35.7 ± 4.3 μm), Emerald® (61.5 ± 18.1 μm), Omnicam® (89.3 ± 14 μm), DWIO® (111 ± 24.8 μm). Significant differences were found between the IOSs; a significant difference in precision was found between the contexts (SC vs. PP vs. FA). The IOSs showed significant differences between them, both in trueness and in precision. The mathematical error increased in the transition from SC to PP up to FA, both in trueness than in precision.

Background: The literature has not yet validated the use of intraoral scanners (IOSs) for full-arch (FA) implant impression. Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the trueness of 12 different IOSs in FA implant impression. Methods: A stone-cast model of a totally edentulous maxilla with 6 implant analogues and scanbodies (SBs) was scanned with a desktop scanner (Freedom UHD®) to capture a reference model (RM), and with 12 IOSs (ITERO ELEMENTS 5D®; PRIMESCAN® and OMNICAM®; CS 3700® and CS 3600®; TRIOS3®; i-500®; EMERALD S® and EMERALD®; VIRTUO VIVO® and DWIO®; RUNEYES QUICKSCAN®). Ten scans were taken using each IOS, and each was compared to the RM, to evaluate trueness. A mesh/mesh method and a nurbs/nurbs method were used to evaluate the overall trueness of the scans; linear and cross distances between the SBs were used to evaluate the local trueness of the scans. The analysis was performed using reverse engineering software (Studio®, Geomagics; Magics®, Materialise). A statistical evaluation was performed. Results: With the mesh/mesh method, the best results were obtained by CS 3700® (mean error 30.4 μm) followed by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (31.4 μm), i-500® (32.2 μm), TRIOS 3® (36.4 μm), CS 3600® (36.5 μm), PRIMESCAN® (38.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (43.8 μm), RUNEYES® (44.4 μm), EMERALD S® (52.9 μm), EMERALD® (76.1 μm), OMNICAM® (79.6 μm) and DWIO® (98.4 μm). With the nurbs/nurbs method, the best results were obtained by ITERO ELEMENTS 5D® (mean error 16.1 μm), followed by PRIMESCAN® (19.3 μm), TRIOS 3® (20.2 μm), i-500® (20.8 μm), CS 3700® (21.9 μm), CS 3600® (24.4 μm), VIRTUO VIVO® (32.0 μm), RUNEYES® (33.9 μm), EMERALD S® (36.8 μm), OMNICAM® (47.0 μm), EMERALD® (51.9 μm) and DWIO® (69.9 μm). Statistically significant differences were found between the IOSs. Linear and cross distances between the SBs (local trueness analysis) confirmed the data that emerged from the overall trueness evaluation. Conclusions: Different levels of trueness were found among the IOSs evaluated in this study. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Purpose: To present the application of custom-made 3D-printed subperiosteal implants for fixed prosthetic restoration of the atrophic posterior mandible of elderly patients.Methods: Between January 2017 and June 2018, all partially edentulous patients aged over 65 years, with two or more missing teeth in the posterior atrophic mandible, and who did not want to undergo bone regenerative procedures, were included in this study. These patients were rehabilitated with custom-made subperiosteal implants, designed from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and fabricated in titanium by means of direct metal laser sintering (DMLS). The outcome measures were fit and stability of the implants at placement, duration of the intervention, implant survival, and early and late complications. All patients were followed for 1 year after surgery.Results: Ten patients (four males, six females; mean age 69.6, SD ± 2.8, median 69, 95% CI 67.9–71.6) were included in the study. The fit of the implants was satisfactory, with a mean rating of 7 out of 10 (SD ± 1.6, median 7, 95% CI 6–8). Only two implants had insufficient fit, because of the presence of scattering in the CBCT; however, they were adapted to the sites during the interventions. The mean duration of the intervention was 44.3 min (SD ± 19.4, median 37, 95% CI 32.3–56.3). At the one-year follow-up, no implants were lost (survival rate 100%). One implant presented immediate postoperative complications with pain, discomfort and swelling, and two patients experienced late complications, having their provisional restorations fractured during the temporisation phase. All these complications were minor in nature, but the final complication rate amounted to 30% (three of ten patients).Conclusions: Although this study has limits (small patient sample and short follow-up), DMLS has proven to be an effective method for fabricating accurate subperiosteal implants, with high survival rates. This may represent an alternative treatment procedure in elderly patients with a severely atrophic posterior mandible, since it allows avoidance of regenerative bone therapies. Further studies are needed to confirm these outcomes.

To compare the trueness and precision of 3D-printed versus milled monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs). A model of a maxilla with a prepared premolar was scanned with an industrial scanner (ATOSQ®, Gom) and an MZC was designed in computer-assisted-design (CAD) software (DentalCad®, Exocad). From that standard tessellation language (STL) file, 10 MZCs (test) were 3D-printed with a Lithography-based Ceramic Manufacturing (LCM) printer (CerafabS65®, Lithoz) and 10 MZCs (control) were milled using a 5-axis machine (DWX-52D®, DGShape). All MZCs were sintered and scanned with the aforementioned scanner. The surface data of each sample (overall crown, marginal area, occlusal surface) were superimposed to the original CAD file (ControlX®, Geomagic) to evaluate trueness: (90-10)/2, absolute average (ABS AVG) and root mean square (RMS) values were obtained for test and control groups (MathLab®, Mathworks) and used for analysis. Finally, the clinical precision (marginal adaptation, interproximal contacts) of test and control MZCs was investigated on a split-cast model printed (Solflex350®, Voco) from the CAD project, and compared. The milled MZCs had a significantly higher trueness than the 3D-printed ones, overall [(90-10)/2 printed 37.8 µm vs milled 21.2 µm; ABS AVG printed 27.2 µm vs milled 15.1 µm; RMS printed 33.2 µm vs milled 20.5 µm; p = 0.000005], at the margins [(90-10)/2 printed 25.6 µm vs milled 12.4 µm; ABS AVG printed 17.8 µm vs milled 9.4 µm; RMS printed 22.8 µm vs milled 15.6 µm; p= 0.000011] and at the occlusal level [(90-10)/2 printed 50.4 µm vs milled 21.9 µm; ABS AVG printed 29.6 µm vs milled 14.7 µm; RMS printed 38.9 µm vs milled 22.5 µm; p = 0.000005]. However, with regard to precision, both test and control groups scored highly, with no significant difference either in the quality of interproximal contact points (p = 0.355) or marginal closure (p = 0.355). Milled MZCs had a statistically higher trueness than 3D-printed ones; all crowns, however, showed high precision, compatible with the clinical use. Although milled MZCs remain more accurate than 3D-printed ones, the LCM technique seems able to guarantee the production of clinically precise zirconia crowns.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is a branch of computer science concerned with building smart software or machines capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. We present a protocol for the use of AI to fabricate implant-supported monolithic zirconia crowns (MZCs) cemented on customized hybrid abutments. Methods: The study protocol consisted of: (1) intraoral scan of the implant position; (2) design of the individual abutment and temporary crown using computer-aided design (CAD) software; (3) milling of the zirconia abutment and the temporary polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA) crown, with extraoral cementation of the zirconia abutment on the relative titanium bonding base, to generate an individual hybrid abutment; (4) clinical application of the hybrid abutment and the temporary PMMA crown; (5) intraoral scan of the hybrid abutment; (6) CAD of the final crown with automated margin line design using AI; (7) milling, sintering and characterisation of the final MZC; and (8) clinical application of the MZC. The outcome variables were mathematical (quality of the fabrication of the individual zirconia abutment) and clinical, such as (1) quality of the marginal adaptation, (2) of interproximal contact points and (3) of occlusal contacts, (4) chromatic integration, (5) survival and (6) success of MZCs. A careful statistical analysis was performed. Results: 90 patients (35 males, 55 females; mean age 53.3 ± 13.7 years) restored with 106 implant-supported MZCs were included in the study. The follow-up varied from 6 months to 3 years. The quality of the fabrication of individual hybrid abutments revealed a mean deviation of 44 μm (± 6.3) between the original CAD design of the zirconia abutment, and the mesh of the zirconia abutment captured intraorally at the end of the provisionalization. At the delivery of the MZCs, the marginal adaptation, quality of interproximal and occlusal contacts, and aesthetic integration were excellent. The three-year cumulative survival and success of the MZCs were 99.0% and 91.3%, respectively. Conclusions: AI seems to represent a reliable tool for the restoration of single implants with MZCs cemented on customised hybrid abutments via a full digital workflow. Further studies are needed to confirm these positive results.

Purpose. To compare the reliability of five different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in the capture of implant scanbodies (SBs) and to verify the dimensional congruence between the meshes (MEs) of the SBs and the corresponding library file (LF). Methods. A gypsum cast of a fully edentulous maxilla with six implant analogues and SBs screwed on was scanned with five different IOSs (PRIMESCAN^®, CS 3700^®, MEDIT i-500^®, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^®, and Emerald S^®). Ten scans were taken for each IOS. The resulting MEs were imported to reverse engineering software for 3D analysis, consisting of the superimposition of the SB LF onto each SB ME. Then, a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the deviations between MEs and LF was performed. A careful statistical analysis was performed. Results. PRIMESCAN^® showed the highest congruence between SB MEs and LF, with the lowest mean absolute deviation (25.5 ± 5.0 μm), immediately followed by CS 3700^® (27.0 ± 4.3 μm); the difference between them was not significant (p = 0.1235). PRIMESCAN^® showed a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500^® (29.8 ± 4.8 μm, p < 0.0001), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^® (34.2 ± 9.3 μm, p < 0.0001), and Emerald S^® (38.3 ± 7.8 μm, p < 0.0001). CS 3700^® had a significantly higher congruence than MEDIT i-500^® (p = 0.0004), ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^® (p < 0.0001), and Emerald S^® (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were also found between MEDIT i-500^® and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^® (p < 0.0001), MEDIT i-500^® and Emerald S^® (p < 0.0001), and ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^® and Emerald S^® (p < 0.0001). Significant differences were found among different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. The deviations of the IOSs showed different directions and patterns. With PRIMESCAN^®, ITERO ELEMENTS 5D^®, and Emerald S^®, the MEs were included inside the LF; with CS 3700^®, the LF was included in the MEs. MEDIT i-500^® showed interpolation between the MEs and LF, with no clear direction for the deviation. Conclusions. Statistically different levels of congruence were found between the SB MEs and the corresponding LF when using different IOSs. Significant differences were also found between different SBs when scanned with the same IOS. Finally, the qualitative evaluation revealed different directions and patterns for the five IOSs.