Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Dental restorations are increasingly manufactured by CAD/CAM systems. Currently, there are two alternatives for digitizing dental implants: direct intra-oral data capturing or indirect from a master cast, both with transfer caps (scanbodies). The aim of this study was the evaluation of the fit of the scanbodies and their ability of reposition. At the site of the first molars and canines, implants were placed bilaterally in a polymer lower arch model (original model), and an impression was taken for fabricating a stone cast (stone model). Ten white-light scans were obtained from the original and the stone model with the scanbodies in place. The scanbodies were retrieved after each scan and re-attached to the same implant or lab analogue. The first scan of the series served as control in both groups. The subsequent nine scans and control were superimposed using inspection software to identify the discrepancies of the four scanbodies in both experimental groups. The systematic error of digitizing the models was 13 μm for the polymer and 5 μm for the stone model. The mean discrepancy of the scanbodies was 39 μm (±58 μm) on the original implants versus 11 μm (±17 μm) on the lab analogues. The difference in scanbody discrepancy between original implants and lab analogues was statistically significant (p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U test). Scanbody discrepancy was higher on original implants than on lab analogues. Fit and reproducibility of the scanbodies on original implants should be improved to achieve higher accuracy of implant-supported CAD/CAM fabricated restorations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Assuncao WG, Filho HG, Zaniquelli O (2004) Evaluation of transfer impressions for osseointegrated implants at various angulations. Implant Dent 13:358–366

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carr AB (1991) Comparison of impression techniques for a five-implant mandibular model. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 6:448–455

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kan JY, Rungcharassaeng K, Bohsali K, Goodacre CJ, Lang BR (1999) Clinical methods for evaluating implant framework fit. J Prosthet Dent 81:7–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Balshi TJ (1996) An analysis and management of fractured implants: a clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 11:660–666

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burguete RL, Johns RB, King T, Patterson EA (1994) Tightening characteristics for screwed joints in osseointegrated dental implants. J Prosthet Dent 71:592–599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eckert SE, Meraw SJ, Cal E, Ow RK (2000) Analysis of incidence and associated factors with fractured implants: a retrospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:662–667

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jemt T, Rubenstein JE, Carlsson L, Lang BR (1996) Measuring fit at the implant prosthodontic interface. J Prosthet Dent 75:314–325

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sahin S, Cehreli MC (2001) The significance of passive framework fit in implant prosthodontics: current status. Implant Dent 10:85–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Wee AG, Aquilino SA, Schneider RL (1999) Strategies to achieve fit in implant prosthodontics: a review of the literature. Int J Prosthodont 12:167–178

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Augthun M, Conrads G (1997) Microbial findings of deep peri-implant bone defects. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:106–112

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Leonhardt A, Renvert S, Dahlen G (1999) Microbial findings at failing implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 10:339–345

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lindhe J, Berglundh T, Ericsson I, Liljenberg B, Marinello C (1992) Experimental breakdown of peri-implant and periodontal tissues. A study in the beagle dog. Clin Oral Implants Res 3:9–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Binon PP, McHugh MJ (1996) The effect of eliminating implant/abutment rotational misfit on screw joint stability. Int J Prosthodont 9:511–519

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Karl M, Winter W, Taylor TD, Heckmann SM (2004) In vitro study on passive fit in implant-supported 5-unit fixed partial dentures. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:30–37

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Al-Bakri IA, Hussey D, Al-Omari WM (2007) The dimensional accuracy of four impression techniques with the use of addition silicone impression materials. J Clin Dent 18:29–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee H, So JS, Hochstedler JL, Ercoli C (2008) The accuracy of implant impressions: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 100:285–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Christensen GJ (2008) Will digital impressions eliminate the current problems with conventional impressions? J Am Dent Assoc 139:761–763

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Beuer F, Schweiger J, Edelhoff D (2008) Digital dentistry: an overview of recent developments for CAD/CAM generated restorations. Br Dent J 204:505–511

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Luthardt RG, Walter MH, Quaas S, Koch R, Rudolph H (2010) Comparison of the three-dimensional correctness of impression techniques: a randomized controlled trial. Quintessence Int 41:845–853

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Del Corso M, Aba G, Vazquez L, Dargaud J, Dohan Ehrenfest DM (2009) Optical three-dimensional scanning acquisition of the position of osseointegrated implants: an in vitro study to determine method accuracy and operational feasibility. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 11:214–221

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mehl A, Ender A, Mormann W, Attin T (2009) Accuracy testing of a new intraoral 3D camera. Int J Comput Dent 12:11–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Masek R (2005) Margin isolation for optical impressions and adhesion. Int J Comput Dent 8:69–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Ma T, Nicholls JI, Rubenstein JE (1997) Tolerance measurements of various implant components. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 12:371–375

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Semper W, Kraft S, Kruger T, Nelson K (2009) Theoretical considerations: implant positional index design. J Dent Res 88:725–730

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Binon PP (2000) Implants and components: entering the new millennium. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 15:76–94

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Semper W, Kraft S, Kruger T, Nelson K (2009) Theoretical optimum of implant positional index design. J Dent Res 88:731–735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Semper W, Kraft S, Mehrhof J, Nelson K (2010) Impact of abutment rotation and angulation on marginal fit: theoretical considerations. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25:752–758

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Luthardt RG, Loos R, Quaas S (2005) Accuracy of intraoral data acquisition in comparison to the conventional impression. Int J Comput Dent 8:283–294

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Private Practice for Oral Surgery, Josef-Heilingbrunnerstrasse 2, 93413, Cham, Germany

    Michael Stimmelmayr

  2. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Munich, Goethestrasse 70, 80336, Munich, Germany

    Jan-Frederik Güth, Kurt Erdelt, Daniel Edelhoff & Florian Beuer

Authors
  1. Michael Stimmelmayr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan-Frederik Güth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kurt Erdelt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Edelhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Florian Beuer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Stimmelmayr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stimmelmayr, M., Güth, JF., Erdelt, K. et al. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit—an in vitro study. Clin Oral Invest 16, 851–856 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0564-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation