Search

Statement of problem Different factors can affect the manufacturing accuracy of additively manufactured dental devices; however, the influence of print orientation and wet-dry storage time on their intaglio accuracy remains uncertain. Purpose The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the effect of print orientation (0, 45, 70, and 90 degrees) and wet-dry storage time (0, 30, 60, and 90 days) on the intaglio accuracy of additively manufactured occlusal devices. Material and methods An occlusal device design was obtained in a standard tessellation language (STL) file format (control file) which was used to fabricate all the specimens by using a stereolithography printer (Form 3+) and a biocompatible resin material (Dental LT Clear Resin, V2). Four groups were created based on the print orientation used to manufacture the specimens: 0, 45, 70, and 90 degrees. Each group was divided into 4 subgroups depending on the time elapsed between manufacturing and accuracy evaluation: 0, 30, 60, and 90 days. For the subgroup 0, a desktop scanner (T710) was used to digitize all the specimens. The 30-day subgroup specimens were stored for 30 days with the following daily storage protocol: 16 hours inside a dry lightproof container, followed by 8 hours in artificial saliva (1700-0305 Artificial Saliva) inside the same lightproof container. The specimens were then digitized by following the same procedures used for subgroup 0. For the subgroups 60 and 90, the identical procedures described for subgroup 30 were completed but after 60 and 90 days of storage, respectively. The reference STL file was used to measure the intaglio discrepancy with the experimental scans obtained among the different subgroups by using the root mean square error calculation. Two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α=.05). Results Print orientation (P

Varying complete-arch digital-implant-scanning techniques have been described, but their accuracy remains uncertain.The purpose of this in vitro investigation was to assess the effect of the implant angulation and impression method (conventional, intraoral digital scan, intraoral scan with a splinting framework, and combining cone beam computed tomography [CBCT] and intraoral scan) on the accuracy of complete arch implant recording.The following 2 casts were obtained: one with 4 parallel (P group) and the other with 4 angled (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group). Both the casts were digitized (7Series Scanner) (control file). The following 4 subgroups were created: conventional polyether impression with a splinted framework (CNV subgroup), intraoral scan (IOS subgroup), intraoral scan with a splinting framework (S-IOS subgroup), and intraoral scan combined with CBCT scan (CBCT-IOS subgroup) (n=10). For each file, an implant-supported bar was designed and imported into a program (Netfabb) to perform linear and angular interimplant abutment measurements. Two-way ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) and Tukey tests were selected to examine the data (α=.05).Implant angulation (P=.010) and impression method (P=.003) significantly influenced the linear trueness. The P group (112 μm) obtained better linear trueness than the NP group (144 μm). The CNV subgroup obtained the best linear trueness, while the IOS and CBCT-IOS showed the worst trueness. Group (P.001) significantly influenced angular trueness. Group (P=.009) and subgroup (P.001) influenced the linear precision. The P group (72 μm) obtained better linear precision than the NP group (91 μm). The IOS subgroup obtained the best linear precision. Group (P=.034) significantly influenced the angular precision. The P group (0.46 degrees) had higher angular precision compared with the NP group (0.60 degrees).Implant angulation and the impression methods tested, impacted the accuracy of the complete-arch implant recording. Parallel implants had better trueness and precision values than nonparallel implants. The conventional impression method showed the best trueness and precision. Among the digital implant scan methods assessed, the S-IOS and CBCT-IOS subgroups acquired significantly better trueness and precision than the IOS subgroup.

(1) Background: Facial scanners are used in different fields of dentistry to digitalize the soft tissues of the patient’s face. The development of technology has allowed the patient to have a 3-dimensional virtual representation, facilitating facial integration in the diagnosis and treatment plan. However, the accuracy of the facial scanner and the obtaining of better results with respect to the manual or two-dimensional (2D) method are questionable. The objective of this clinical trial was to evaluate the usefulness and accuracy of the 3D method (a dual-structured light facial scanner) and compare it with the 2D method (photography) to obtain facial analysis in the maximum intercuspation position and smile position. (2) Methods: A total of 60 participants were included, and nine facial landmarks and five interlandmarks distances were determined by two independent calibrated operators for each participant. All measurements were made using three methods: the manual method (manual measurement), the 2D method (photography), and the 3D method (facial scanner). All clinical and lighting conditions, as well as the specific parameters of each method, were standardized and controlled. The facial interlandmark distances were made by using a digital caliper, a 2D software program (Adobe Photoshop, version 21.0.2), and a 3D software program (Meshlab, version 2020.12), respectively. The data were analyzed by SPSS statistical software. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test revealed that trueness and precision values were normally distributed (p > 0.05), so a Student’s t-test was employed. (3) Results: Statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.01) were observed in all interlandmark measurements in the 2D group (photography) to compare with the manual group. The 2D method obtained a mean accuracy value of 2.09 (±3.38) and 2.494 (±3.67) in maximum intercuspation and smile, respectively. On the other hand, the 3D method (facial scanner) obtained a mean accuracy value of 0.61 (±1.65) and 0.28 (±2.03) in maximum intercuspation and smile, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences with the manual method. (4) Conclusions: The employed technique demonstrated that it influences the accuracy of facial records. The 3D method reported acceptable accuracy values, while the 2D method showed discrepancies over the clinically acceptable limits.

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of ambient light illuminance on the accuracy and scanning time of different intraoral scanners (IOSs) in complete-arch implant scans.Seven IOSs (TRIOS 3, Primescan, Element 5D, i700, i500, CS3700, and CS3600) at 5 ambient lighting illuminances (100, 500, 1000, 5000, and 10 000 lux) were evaluated. An edentulous cast with 4 implants was selected as the master model. An implant scan body was tightened on each implant. The cast was digitized by using a laboratory scanner to obtain a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file, and 50 scans (10 per ambient light condition) were recorded with each IOS. Scanning time was recorded by using a digital chronograph. Intraoral scan deviations were calculated by using a 3D metrology software program (Geomagic Control X). Kruskal-Wallis and pairwise comparison tests were used to analyze the data (α=0.05).The trueness and precision values obtained for each IOS tested were significantly different under the varying lighting conditions assessed. TRIOS 3 (34.0 ± 3.3 µm trueness; 24.5 ± 14.9 µm precision), Element 5D (34.5 ± 7.1 µm trueness; 25.9 ± 7.6 µm precision), and CS3700 (34.9. ±13.0 µm trueness; 34.6 ± 19.2 µm precision) performed better under 100 lux illumination, CS3600 (69.5 ± 24.0 µm trueness; 36.6 ± 20.1 µm precision) at 500 lux; i500 (36.2 ± 5.1 µm trueness; 21.4 ± 6.8 µm precision) at 1000 lux; i700 (34.8 ± 2.2 µm trueness; 15.4 ± 5.0 µm precision) at 5000 lux, and Primescan (37.4 ± 37.3 µm trueness; 26.2 ± 26.2 µm precision) at 10,000 lux. Additionally, the scanning time was different under different illuminance for each IOS. The fastest IOS in all light conditions was Primescan, with significant differences with all the groups (P.01), followed by TRIOS 3 in all groups except under 100 lux illumination, where i700 was the second fastest.Ambient light influenced the accuracy and scanning time of IOSs assessed; however, the effect was not the same for all devices. It is necessary to optimize ambient light illuminance for each IOS to maximize scanning accuracy.

This article describes a technique to assist with intraoral digital scans for fabricating tooth-supported prostheses by using a custom intraoral scan body when the extension of the scan or the clinical characteristics might compromise the reliability of the intraoral digital scan. A preliminary intraoral scan of the tooth preparations is used to design a custom intraoral scan body which is manufactured using polymethylmethacrylate and a 5-axis milling machine. A low-viscosity polyvinyl siloxane impression of the tooth preparations is obtained using the custom intraoral scan body. Subsequently, the custom intraoral scan body is digitized using an intraoral scanner. A design software program is used to align the digitized custom intraoral scan body with the preliminary intraoral scan to obtain the definitive virtual cast. This technique aims to reduce manual conventional laboratory procedures such as pouring dental impression or die trimming which might minimize inaccuracies on the virtual definitive cast.

Background Intraoral scanner evaluation (3Shape, TRIOS®) of soft tissue thickness around convergent collar implants and shoulderless abutments. Material and Methods Ambispective longitudinal analytical study with a sample size of 26 implants in 17 patients treated in a private dental clinic. Pacients were divided into two groups: Prama Implants or group 1 (n=19) and Shelta implants combined with XA abutment or group 2 (n=7). Thickness changes after one- and two-year follow-up were analyzed. Results In group 1 baseline mean thickness was 6.53 mm (±1.06) and follow-up mean thickness was 8.06 mm (±0.98), in group 2 initial mean thickness was 7.66 mm (±1.09) and follow-up mean thickness was of 8.42 mm (±1.03). Conclusions Biologically guided crowns design seems to significantly increase the soft tissue volumen around convergent morphology implants. Key words:Biologic width, peri-implant soft tissue, marginal bone loss, transmucosal implant, convergent collar, BOPT (biological oriented preparation technique), BOPT abutment, soft tissue stability, intraoral scanner.