PURPOSE: . This study evaluated screw loosening and 3D crown displacement after cyclic loading of implant-supported incisor crowns cemented with original titanium bases or with three compatible, nonoriginal components. MATERIALS AND METHODS: . A total of 32 dental implants were divided into four groups (n = 8 each): Group 1 used original titanium bases, while Groups 2-4 used compatible components. The reverse torque value (RTV) was evaluated prior to and after cyclic loading (1,200,000 cycles). Samples (prior to and after cyclic loading) were scanned with a microcomputed tomography (micro-CT). Preload and postload files were superimposed by 3D inspection software, and 3D crown displacement analysis was performed using root-mean-square (RMS) values. All datasets were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc analysis. RESULTS. Significant variations were observed in the postload RTV, depending on the titanium base brand (P < .001). The mean postload RTVs were significantly higher in Groups 1 and 2 than in the other study groups. While evaluating 3D crown displacement, the lowest mean RMS value was shown in the original Group 1, with the highest RMS value occurring in Group 4. CONCLUSION . Within the limitations of this in vitro study and under the implemented conditions, it was concluded that the manufacturer brand of the titanium base significantly influenced screw loosening following the fatigue test and influenced 3D crown displacement after cyclic loading.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.

PURPOSE: This study assesses the impact of additional reference objects (RO) on the trueness and precision of distance and angle measurements between scan bodies in digital scans with four different intraoral scanners (IOS) in partially edentulous models. MATERIALS AND METHODS Maxilla models (Frasaco, Frasaco GmbH, Tettnang, Germany) with one (3-U) and two (4-U) missing posterior teeth were 3D printed and fitted with dental implants and scan bodies.Four intraoral scanners (Primescan (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA) (PS), Trios 3 (3Shape) (T3), Trios 4 (3Shape) (T4), and CS3600 (Carestream Dentistry) (CS)) captured digital implant impressions with and without additional RO. Scans were aligned and assessed for distance and angulation measurements between scan bodies. Statistical analyses compared trueness and precision across model groups using the Student t-test and Welch’s ANOVA. RESULTS: CS consistently showed the highest distance values across IOS devices in both the 4-U and 3-U models (P < .05), both with and without RO. The distance values were not considerably affected by the presence of RO (P > .05), except for a few isolated cases in the PS and CS groups of 3-U models. When measuring angles, CS usually showed greater values than the other IOS devices, especially when RO was present both in the 4-U and 3-U variants (P < .05). CONCLUSION The influence of additional reference objects on accuracy varies with different scanner types, irrespective of edentulous area length.