Influence of implant depth and scanning rod length on accuracy of digital impression for mandibular posterior single-tooth implant restoration

doi:10.12122/j.issn.1673-4254.2024.11.23

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To study the influence of implant depth and scanning rod lengths on the accuracy of digital impression for single-tooth implant restoration of the mandibular posterior teeth. Methods Five standard dental cast models with missing right mandibular first molar (46) were prepared with the subgingival implant depths of 0, 1, 3, 5 and 7 mm. ITI RC and ITI RC H11 scanning rods were connected to the replacement body and placed into the seating tract for scanning. The reference data were obtained using a 3D dental scanner, and the experimental data were obtained by 10 scans of each model using a digitized intraoral scanner. Geomagic Wrap 2021 was used to analyze the model data to test the trueness and precision of the models. Results The trueness did not differ significantly among the groups (P>0.05). The implant depth of 1 mm achieved the highest impression precision (66.81±2.45 μm), and the depth of 0 mm resulted in a significantly lower precision (95.60±3.04 μm) than the depth of 1 and 3 mm. Starting from the subgingival depth of 1 mm, the precision of the scan decreased progressively with the increase of the implant depth. At the subgingival implant depth of 5 or 7 mm, the use of an extended rod significantly improved the scan precision. Conclusion For single-tooth implant restoration of the mandibular posterior teeth, the implant depth can substantially affect the accuracy of digital impression, which decreases as the implant depth increases. For a deep implant, the use of a longer scanning rod can improve the scanning accuracy.

Key words: Oral implants, implantation depth, scanning rod, Impression accuracy, Digital impression technology

Shuyu SUN, Xinyan ZHENG, Hongqin GAN, Ruixue TIAN, Xiaofei XIE. Influence of implant depth and scanning rod length on accuracy of digital impression for mandibular posterior single-tooth implant restoration[J]. Journal of Southern Medical University, 2024, 44(11): 2250-2255.

Figures/Tables 7

Fig.1 ITI RC and ITI RC H11 model scanning rods (A) and the replacement body (B).

Fig. 2 Implantation models showing placement of ITI RC and ITI RC H11 scanning rods with subgingival implant depth and upper scanning rod length of 0 mm and 9.15 mm (A), 1 mm and 8.15 mm (B), 3 mm and 6.15 mm (C), 5 mm and 4.15 mm (D, using an ITI RC scanning rod), or 7 mm and 2.15 mm (E, using an ITI RC scanning rod), respectively. F: Implant depth of 5 mm with placement of an ITI RC H11 scanning rod. G: Implant depth of 7 mm with placement of an ITI RC H11 rod.

Fig.3 3D dental scanner.

Fig.4 Scanning model obtained using a 3D tooth scanner.

Tab.1 Comparison of precision RMS values among groups with different subgingival implant depth (n=10, μm)

Group	Mean±SD	Min	Max	LSD
A (0 mm)	95.60±3.04	90.8	99.7	A>C>B* B<C<D<E^#
B (1 mm)	66.81±2.45*	61.2	69.7
C (3 mm)	85.84±2.54*^#	81.3	89.8
D (5 mm)	96.09±2.92^#	91.3	99.7
E (7 mm)	105.93±3.81^#	100.2	110.7
Total	90.05±13.68	61.2	110.7

Fig.5 Color map of implant scanning data deviation under different subgingival implant depths. A: 0 mm; B: 1 mm; C: 3 mm; D: 5 mm; E: 7 mm.

Tab.2 Comparison of model precision RMS values using scan rods of different lengths (n=10, μm)

Subgingival (mm)	Type	Mean±SD	t	P
5	RC	96.09±2.92	8.129	<0.01
5	RC H11	84.49±2.57	8.129	<0.01
7	RC	105.93±3.81	7.877	<0.01
7	RC H11	93.74±2.98	7.877	<0.01

References 32

1	Manfredini M, Pellegrini M, Rigoni M, et al. Oral health-related quality of life in implant-supported rehabilitations: a prospective single-center observational cohort study[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2024, 24(1): 531-41.
2	Parmar RP, Bakutra GV, Vishnoi SL, et al. Awareness and oral health related quality of life (OHRQoL) in patients with dental implants compared to tooth supported FPD: a questionnaire study[J]. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res, 2024, 14(3): 252-6.
3	Linkevicius T, Apse P, Grybauskas S, et al. Influence of thin mucosal tissues on crestal bone stability around implants with platform switching: a 1-year pilot study[J]. J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2010, 68(9): 2272-7.
4	Sargolzaie N, Zarch HH, Arab H, et al. Marginal bone loss around crestal or subcrestal dental implants: prospective clinical study[J]. J Korean Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2022, 48(3): 159-66.
5	Rai S, Misra D, Misra A, et al. Reliability of Grayscale Value for Bone Density Determination in Oral Rehabilitation using Dental Implants[J]. Int J Appl Basic Med Res, 2023, 13(3): 143-8.
6	Rodriguez A, Mohamed M, AlHachache S, et al. A narrative review on oral mucosa biomechanics and clinical implications of periodontal and implant-related regenerative procedures[J]. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent, 2024, 44(5): 578-91.
7	Yonezawa D, Apaza Alccayhuaman KA, Iezzi G, et al. The influence on osseointegration of immediate functional loading on single crowns: a randomized, double-blind, split mouth controlled clinical trial with histomorphometric evaluation[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2024, 39(5): 699-706.
8	Arcuri L, Lorenzi C, Vanni A, et al. Comparison of the accuracy of intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques on implants: a review[J]. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents, 2020, 34(1 ): 89-97.
9	Husein HA, Morad ML, Kanout S. Accuracy of conventional and digital methods of obtaining full-arch dental impression (In vitro study)[J]. Cureus, 2022, 14(9): e29055.
10	Haddadi Y, Bahrami G, Isidor F. Accuracy of intra-oral scans compared to conventional impression in vitro[J]. Prim Dent J, 2019, 8(3): 34-9.
11	D' Haese R, Vrombaut T, Roeykens H, et al. In vitro accuracy of digital and conventional impressions for full-arch implant-supported prostheses[J]. J Clin Med, 2022, 11(3): 594-604.
12	El Osta N, Drancourt N, Auduc C, et al. Accuracy of conventional impressions and digital scans for implant-supported fixed prostheses in maxillary free-ended partial edentulism: an in vitro study[J]. J Dent, 2024, 143: 104892.
13	Sawase T, Kuroshima S. The current clinical relevancy of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry[J]. Dent Mater J, 2020, 39(1): 57-61.
14	García-Gil I, Cortés-Bretón-Brinkmann J, Jiménez-García J, et al. Precision and practical usefulness of intraoral scanners in implant dentistry: a systematic literature review[J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2020, 12(8): e784-93.
15	Wismeijer D, Joda T, Flügge T, et al. Group 5 ITI Consensus Report: digital technologies[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2018, 29(): 436-42.
16	Gimenez-Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Özcan M, et al. An in vitro study of factors influencing the performance of digital intraoral impressions operating on active wavefront sampling technology with multiple implants in the edentulous maxilla[J]. J Prosthodont, 2017, 26(8): 650-5.
17	Choi YD, Lee KE, Mai HN, et al. Effects of scan body exposure and operator on the accuracy of image matching of implant impressions with scan bodies[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2020, 124(3): 379. e1-6.
18	Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, et al. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth[J]. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 2015, 17(): e54-64.
19	Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, et al. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2014, 29(4): 853-62.
20	Sequeira V, Harper MT, Lilly CL, et al. Accuracy of digital impressions at varying implant depths: an in vitro study[J]. J Prosthodont, 2023, 32(1): 54-61.
21	Laohverapanich K, Luangchana P, Anunmana C, et al. Different implant subgingival depth affects the trueness and precision of the 3D dental implant position: a comparative in vitro study among five digital scanners and a conventional technique[J]. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 2021, 36(6): 1111-20.
22	International Organization for Standardization. . Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 1: General principles and definitions. ISO 1994 [S].
23	Kim RJY, Park JM, Shim JS. Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: a qualitative and quantitative evaluation[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2018, 120(6): 895-903.
24	Güth JF, Runkel C, Beuer F, et al. Accuracy of five intraoral scanners compared to indirect digitalization[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2017, 21(5): 1445-55.
25	Liang KN, Weir MD, Xie XJ, et al. Dentin remineralization in acid challenge environment via PAMAM and calcium phosphate composite[J]. Dent Mater, 2016, 32(11): 1429-40.
26	Kim MK, Kim JM, Lee YM, et al. The effect of scanning distance on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners used in dentistry[J]. Clin Anat, 2019, 32(3): 430-8.
27	Arakida T, Kanazawa M, Iwaki M, et al. Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner[J]. J Prosthodont Res, 2018, 62(3): 324-9.
28	Jivanescu A, Rotar P, Hategan S, et al. Clinical factors influence the trueness of intra-oral scanning[J]. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent, 2019, 27(1): 51-5.
29	Hategan SI, Ionel TF, Goguta L, et al. Powder and powder-free intra-oral scanners: digital impression accuracy[J]. Prim Dent J, 2018, 7(2): 40-3.
30	Schwarz F, Mihatovic I, Golubovich V, et al. Impact of abutment microstructure and insertion depth on crestal bone changes at nonsubmerged titanium implants with platform switch[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2015, 26(3): 287-92.
31	Iorio-Siciliano V, Blasi A, Isola G, et al. Resolution of peri-implant mucositis at tissue- and bone-level implants: a 6-month prospective controlled clinical trial[J]. Clin Oral Implants Res, 2023, 34(5): 450-62.
32	Doornewaard R, Bruyn H, Matthys C, et al. The long-term effect of adapting the vertical position of implants on peri-implant health: a 5-year intra-subject comparison in the edentulous mandible including oral health-related quality of life[J]. J Clin Med, 2020, 9(10): 3320-32.