Resumen de 3D Accuracy of a Conventional Method Versus Three Digital Scanning Strategies for Completely Edentulous Maxillary Implant Impressions
Arturo Blanco-Plard, Ana Hernandez, Rafael Fernando Pino, Nadyan Vargas, Sona Rivas-Tumanyan, Augusto Elias
Purpose: To compare the 3D accuracy of three scanning strategies and conventional impressions using an edentulous model with six implants. Materials and Methods: An edentulous maxillary master model was fabricated with six equigingival internal connection implants at 0 degrees of angulation. Ten conventional open-tray splinted implant-level impressions were made and poured in stone. A master model and conventional casts were digitized with a reference scanner. Digital impressions were made by calibrated clinicians with a TRIOS 3 intraoral scanner ([IOS] 3Shape) according to three scanning strategies: DIG1 (occlusal-palatal-lingual), DIG2 (S-type motion from buccal to palatal), and DIG3 (scanning two half arches and connecting them at the midline). Each technique was repeated 10 times on the master model. Deviations from the STL datasets (N = 40) were compared to those of the reference master model using the Hexagon Metrology software system PC-DMIS CAD++. Linear distortions (dX, dY, dZ), global linear distortion (dR), and angular distortions (Absdθx, Absdθy) were calculated. Kruskal-Wallis test and mixed linear and logistic regression models were used to compare the original and binary distortion measures between the techniques. Results: The mean dR ranged from 91 μm (conventional method) to 183 μm (DIG1). The mean angular distortion ranged from 0.20 degrees (Absdθx for DIG2) to 0.69 degrees (Absdθy for DIG3). No scan pattern resulted in a more accurate reproduction in any of the measured parameters than the conventional impression method. There were significant differences between the methods for all distortion measures. Conclusions: No group reproduced the 3D position of the six-implant master model below the thresholds for both global linear and angular distortions. All the digital strategies tested were less accurate than the conventional open-tray splinted implant-level impression technique.
