Comparison of the accuracy of two types of scanning bodies for intraoral scanning in complete-arch implant-supported fixed restoration
10.3760/cma.j.cn112144-20240817-00315
- VernacularTitle:两种扫描杆辅助下全牙弓种植固定修复口内扫描精度的比较
- Author:
Xiaojiao FU
1
;
Zhengzhen CAI
1
;
Junyu SHI
1
;
Hongchang LAI
1
Author Information
1. 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院口腔种植科 上海交通大学口腔医学院 国家口腔医学中心 国家口腔疾病临床医学研究中心 上海市口腔医学重点实验室 上海市口腔医学研究所，上海 200011
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Dental implantation;
Jaw, edentulous;
Intraoral scanning;
Accuracy;
Digital dentistry
- From:
Chinese Journal of Stomatology
2025;60(3):267-272
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the accuracy of intraoral scanning for complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis using umbrella scan bodies (USB) and conventional scan bodies (CSB), providing a reference for the clinical application of umbrella-shaped scanning bodies.Methods:A new type of umbrella-shaped scanning body and its matching auxiliary bar were independently developed. A maxillary type Ⅳ dental stone model with six parallel implant abutment analogs was fabricated. Conventional scanning bodies were installed on the model, and a laboratory scanner was used to scan the model as reference data. The CSB, USB, and USB combined with an auxiliary bar (U+SB) were installed on the model, respectively. A single attending physician performed intraoral scanning 10 times for each group using an intraoral scanner, serving as test group data (CSB, USB, U+SB). The test data were best-fit aligned with the virtual abutment models generated from the reference data. The trueness and precision of root-mean-square error (RMSE) values, inter-abutment distance deviations, angular deviations, and scanning time were measured and calculated. Repeated measures ANOVA and generalized estimating equation models were used for statistical analysis.Results:The trueness of RMSE values [(48.0±12.6) and (45.9±13.4) μm] and distance deviations [(64.5±60.2) and (63.8±54.4) μm] of the USB and U+SB groups were significantly better than those of the CSB group [(81.9±23.9) and (90.0±85.2) μm] (all P<0.05). There was no significant difference in trueness of RMSE values and distance deviations between the USB group and U+SB group (all P>0.05). There were no significant differences in the precision of RMSE values and angular deviations among the three groups (all P>0.05). The scanning time of the USB group and U+SB group [(54.3±11.8) and (35.8±10.1) s] was significantly shorter than that of CSB group [(108.7±38.9) s] (all P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared with conventional scanning bodies, the new umbrella-shaped scanning body demonstrates higher accuracy and efficiency for intraoral scanning impressions in complete-arch implant-supported fixed prosthesis.
