Dijital Tarama Parçası Materyalinin ve Mukoza Modifikasyon Tekniğinin Çoklu İmplantlarla Dişsiz Arkların Dijital Ölçülerinin Doğruluğuna Etkisi

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 131 - 141, 30.08.2024

Görkem Göksoy , Demet Çağıl Ayvalıoğlu , Bilge Gökçen Rohling

https://doi.org/10.51122/neudentj.2024.96

Abstract

Amaç: Dental implantların dijital ölçüleri yaygın olarak kullanılmaktadır ve dişsiz çenelerin tam ark taramaları için tek ve kısmi dişsiz boşluklara göre daha düşük doğruluk sonuçları vermektedir. Mevcut araştırmanın amacı, çoklu implantlı dişsiz arkların dijital ölçülerinin doğruluğu üzerinde, tarama gövdesi malzemesinin ve ek referans alanlarının etkisini değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Ana model olarak altı implantlı (BLT, RC, Institut Straumann, AG) dişsiz bir maksilla modeli kullanılmıştır. PEEK ve PMMA tarama gövdeleri implantlara yerleştirilmiş ve bir ağız içi tarayıcı (TRIOS4, 3Shape) ile dijital ölçüler alınmıştır. Dişsiz boşluklara akışkan kompozit (C), dişeti bariyer materyali (GB), taranabilir silikondan (S) yapılmış referans işaretleyiciler yerleştirilmiş ve ölçüler alınmıştır. Ana model, yüksek çözünürlüklü bir referans tarayıcı ile dijitalleştirilmiştir. Önceden belirlenen noktaların sapmaları ve implantlar arası mesafeler çakıştırma tekniği kullanılarak hesaplanmıştır. Çoklu karşılaştırmaları belirlemek için Mann Whitney U ve Kruskal Wallis-H testi yapılmıştır.
Bulgular: İmplantlar arası mesafe ölçümleri, PEEK tarama gövdelerinin PMMA tarama gövdelerinden daha iyi hassasiyet gösterdiğini göstermiştir (Ortalama sapmalar; PEEK: 40±4 mµ, PMMA: 127±6 mµ, p<.001). Alt gruplarda da PEEK grupları PMMA gruplarına göre daha doğru sonuçlar vermiştir (p<.001). Kruskal-Wallis testi de kesinlikte gruplar arasında önceden belirlenmiş noktaların sapmalarında istatistiksel olarak farklılık göstermiştir (p<.001). Ek referans alanlarının eklenmesi, PEEK gruplarında ölçünün kesinliği ve doğruluğu etkilememiştir.
Sonuç: PEEK tarama gövdeleri kullanıldığında, referans işaretçilerin eklenmesi dijital ölçülerin doğruluğunda herhangi bir anlam ifade etmemektedir. PMMA, tarama gövdesi malzemesi olarak alternatif bir malzeme gibi görünmüyor, ek referans alanlarının eklenmesi gerekmektedir. Ancak farklı tarama teknolojileri ile daha ileri çalışmalar yapılmalıdır.

Keywords

Protez, İmplant üstü Protez, Tarama Parçası, Dijital Ölçü.

Effect of Scanbody Material and Mucosa Modification Technique on The Accuracy of Digital Impressions of Edentulous Arches with Multiple Implants

Abstract

Aim: The aim of current research is to evaluate the effect of scanbody material and additional reference markers in the form of artificial landmarks on the accuracy of digital impressions of edentulous arches with multiple implants.
Material and Methods: A model of an edentulous maxilla with six implants (BLT, RC, Institut Straumann, AG) was used as master model. PEEK and PMMA scanbodies were screwed on the implants and digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS4, 3Shape). Reference markers made of flowable composite (C), gingival barrier material (GB), scannable silicone (S) were placed on the edentulous spaces and impressions were obtained. The master model was digitalized with an extraoral high-resolution reference scanner. Deviations of the predetermined points and inter-implant distances were calculated by using superimpositining technique.
Results: Inter-implant distance measurements showed that PEEK scanbodies demonstrated better precision than PMMA scanbodies, (p<.001). In the subgroups, also PEEK groups were more accurate than PMMA groups (p<.001). Kruskal-Wallis test also showed statistical difference in deviations of the predetermined points among the groups in precision (p<.001). Addition of markers did not influence the precision and trueness in PEEK groups but in PMMA groups both in distance measurements and predetermined point deviations.
Conclusion: Addition of reference markers does not make any significance in the accuracy of digital impressions when PEEK scanbodies are used. PMMA seems not to be an alternative material as scanbody material, addition of markers is needed.

Keywords

Prosthesis, Implant Supported Prosthesis, Scan body

References

• Andriessen FS, Rijkens DR, van der Meer WJ, Wismeijer DW. Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles: A pilot study. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2014;111:186-94.
• Yamany SM, Farag AA. Surface Signatures: An Orientation Independent Free-Form Surface Representation Scheme for the Purpose of Objects Registration and Matching. 2002;24:1105-20.
• Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. Vol. 120, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. Mosby Inc. 2018;120:343-52.
• Stimmelmayr M, Güth JF, Erdelt K, Edelhoff D, Beuer F. Digital evaluation of the reproducibility of implant scanbody fit-an in vitro study. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16:851-6.
• Ramsey CD, Ritter RG. Utilization of digital technologies for fabrication of definitive implant-supported restorations. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2012;24:299-308.
• Chochlidakis K, Papaspyridakos P, Tsigarida A, Romeo D, Chen Y wei, Natto Z, et al. Digital versus conventional full-arch implant impressions: A prospective study on 16 edentulous maxillae. Journal of Prosthodontics. 2020;1:281-6.
• Imburgia M, Logozzo S, Hauschild U, Veronesi G, Mangano C, Mangano FG. Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2017;17:1-13.
• Mangano FG, Veronesi G, Hauschild U, Mijiritsk E, Mangano C. Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: A comparative in vitro study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0163107.
• Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, Chen Z, Li Z. Improved scanning accuracy with newly designed scan bodies: An in vitro study comparing digital versus conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2020;1:625-33.
• Revilla-León M, Att W, Dent M, Özcan M, Rubenstein J. Comparison of conventional, photogrammetry, and intraoral scanning accuracy of complete-arch implant impression procedures evaluated with a coordinate measuring machine. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2021;125:470-8.
• Flügge T, van der Meer WJ, Gonzalez BG, Vach K, Wismeijer D, Wang P. The accuracy of different dental impression techniques for implant-supported dental prostheses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2018;29:374-92.
• Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, Mcglumphy EA, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2020;123:96-104.
• Canullo L, Pesce P, Caponio VCA, Iacono R, Luciani FS, Raffone C,Menini M. Effect of auxiliary geometric devices on the accuracy of intraoral scans in full-arch implant-supported rehabilitations-an in vitro study. Journal of Dentistry. 2024;104979.
• Cheng J, Zhang H, Liu H, Li J, Wang HL, Tao X. Accuracy of edentulous full‐arch implant impression: An in vitro comparison between conventional impression, intraoral scan with and without splinting, and photogrammetry. Clin Oral Impl Res. 2024;00:1-13.
• Arikan H, Muhtarogullari M, Uzel SM, Guncu MB, Aktas G, Marshall LS, Turkyilmaz I. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant-supported complete-arch prosthesis when using an auxiliary geometry device. Journal of Dental Sciences, 2023;18:808-13.
• Rutkūnas V, Geciauskaite A, Jegelevicius D, Vaitiekünas M. Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2017;10:101-20.
• Flügge T, Att W, Metzger M, Nelson K. Precision of Dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:277-83.
• Schmidt A and WB and SMA. Accuracy of digital implant impressions in clinical studies: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33:573-85.
• Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014;29:853-62.
• Vandeweghe S, Vervack V, Dierens M, De Bruyn H. Accuracy of digital impressions of multiple dental implants: an in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2017;1:648-53.