Dijital Diş Hekimliğinde Kullanılan İmplant Tarama Gövdeleri

Year 2025, Volume: 7 Issue: 2, 257 - 268, 29.08.2025

Damla Bilgin Avşar , A. Atila Ertan

Abstract

Diş hekimliğinde geleneksel ölçü alma tekniği, teknolojinin gelişmesiyle beraber yerini dijital ölçü sistemlerine bırakmaya başlamıştır. Dijital ölçü tekniğinin standardizasyon kolaylığı, sanal hasta oluşturabilme imkanı, alınan ölçünün fiziki yer kaplamayıp veri saklamayı kolay hale getirmesi, üretim sürecini hızlandırarak zamanın daha verimli kullanılmasını sağlaması, özellikle tat, koku hassasiyeti ve bulantı refleksi olan hastalarda hasta konforunu arttırma gibi birçok avantajı mevcuttur. Gelişmekte olan bu ölçü alma tekniği sayesinde ilgili bölgeye ait ölçü, tarayıcılar ile direkt ya da indirekt olarak dijital ortama aktarılmaktadır. İmplant destekli protezlerin, dijital iş akışı ile başarılı bir şekilde üretilmesinde doğru ölçü alımı büyük öneme sahiptir. Dijital iş akışında, implant konumlarının sanal ortama aktarılması implant tarama gövdesi adı verilen ara parçalar ile sağlanmaktadır. Bilgisayar destekli tasarım yazılımının sanal kütüphanesindeki implant tarama gövdesinin üç boyutlu görüntüsü, dijital ölçüdeki implant tarama gövdesiyle doğru bir şekilde eşlenmelidir. Bu işlem, implantın konumunu tasarım yazılımı içinde sanal olarak belirlemek için gereklidir. İmplant tarama gövdelerinin hangi materyalden yapıldığı ve geometrik şekli, tarama doğruluğunu etkileyebilen parametrelerden bazılarıdır. Ayrıca tarama gövdelerine uygulanan sıkıştırma tork değeri, sterilizasyon işlemi, kullanım sayısı gibi faktörler de taramanın hassasiyetini etkileyebilmektedir. Bu makalenin amacı dijital ölçüde kullanılan implant tarama gövdeleri hakkındaki güncel bilgileri sunmak ve implant tarama gövdelerine ait özelliklerin tarama doğruluğu üzerindeki etkisini incelemektir.

Keywords

bilgisayar destekli tasarım , dental implantlar , dental ölçü tekniği

Implant Scan Bodies in Digital Dentistry

Abstract

The traditional impression-taking technique in dentistry has begun to be replaced by digital impression systems with the development of technology. Digital impression technique has many advantages such as ease of standardization, the possibility of creating a virtual patient, easier to store data, accelerating the production process and ensuring more efficient use of time, and increasing patient comfort in patients with taste, smell sensitivity and gag reflex. With this developing impression technique, the impression of the relevant region is transferred indirectly to the digital environment with scanners. Accuracy of impression-making has importance in the successful production of implant-supported prothesis with a digital workflow. In the digital workflow, transfer of implant positions to the virtual environment is provided by implant scan bodies. It is critical to accurately match the image of the implant scan bodies stored in the virtual library of the computer-aided design software with the scan body in digital impression. This process is necessary to virtually determine the position of the implant within the design software. The material and the geometry of the implant scan bodies are some of the parameters that can affect scanning accuracy. In addition, factors such as the tightening torque applied to the scan bodies, the sterilization process, and the number of uses can also affect the sensitivity of the scan. The aim of this article is to present information about implant scan bodies used in digital impression and to examine the effect of the features of implant scan bodies on scanning accuracy.

Keywords

computer-aided design , dental implants , dental impression technique

References

• Gómez‐Polo M, Donmez MB, Çakmak G, Yilmaz B, Revilla‐León M. Influence of implant scan body design (height, diameter, geometry, material, and retention system) on intraoral scanning accuracy: a systematic review. J Prosthodont. 2023;32:165-80
• Alikhasi M, Alsharbaty MHM, Moharrami M. Digital implant impression technique accuracy: a systematic review. Implant Dent. 2017;26:929-35.
• Marques S, Ribeiro P, Falcão C, Lemos BF, Ríos-Carrasco B, Ríos-Santos JV, et al. Digital impressions in implant dentistry: A literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18:1020.
• Yilmaz H, Arınç H, Çakmak G, Atalay S, Donmez MB, Kökat AM, et al. Effect of scan pattern on the scan accuracy of a combined healing abutment scan body system. J Prosthet Dent. 2024;131:110-8
• Stimmelmayr M, Güth J-F, 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.
• Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B. Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;120:343-52.
• Revilla-León M, Smith Z, Methani MM, Zandinejad A, Özcan M. Influence of scan body design on accuracy of the implant position as transferred to a virtual definitive implant cast. J Prosthet Dent. 2021;125:918-23.
• Ramsey CD, Ritter RG. Utilization of digital technologies for fabrication of definitive implant‐supported restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24:299-308.
• Lee JH, Bae JH, Lee SY. Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials. Sci Rep. 2021;11:21892.
• Laohverapanich K, Luangchana P, Anunmana C, Pornprasertsuk-Damrongsri S. 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. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2021;36:1111-20.
• Tan JZH, Tan MY, Toh YLS, Wong KY, Tan KBC. Three-dimensional positional accuracy of intraoral and laboratory implant scan bodies. J Prosthet Dent. 2022;128:735-44.
• Peñarrocha‐Oltra D, Agustín‐Panadero R, Pradíes G, Gomar‐Vercher S, Penarrocha‐Diago M. Maxillary full‐arch immediately loaded implant‐supported fixed prosthesis designed and produced by photogrammetry and digital printing: a clinical report. J Prosthodont. 2017;26:75-81.
• Sánchez-Monescillo A, Sánchez-Turrión A, Vellon-Domarco E, Salinas-Goodier C, Prados-Frutos JC. Photogrammetry impression technique: a case history report. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:71-3.
• Sánchez-Monescillo A, Hernanz-Martín J, González-Serrano C, González-Serrano J, Duarte Jr S. All-on-four rehabilitation using photogrammetric impression technique. Quintessence Int. 2019;50:288-93.
• MedMark Media. The use of photogrammetry for the fabrication of full-arch immediate prostheses. Date accessed: 19 May 2024. https://implantpracticeus.com/ce-articles/the-use-of-photogrammetry-for-the-fabrication-of-full-arch-immediate-prostheses/
• Idıtec North West S.L. Date accessed: 18 May 2024. https://www.picdental.com/pic-system/pic-transfers
• Revilla-León M, Rubenstein J, Methani MM, Piedra-Cascón W, et al. Trueness and precision of complete-arch photogrammetry implant scanning assessed with a coordinate-measuring machine. J Prosthet Dent. 2023;129:160-5.
• Flügge TV, Att W, Metzger MC, Nelson K. Precision of Dental Implant Digitization Using Intraoral Scanners. Int J Prosthodont. 2016;29:277-83.
• Li H, Lyu P, Wang Y, Sun Y. Influence of object translucency on the scanning accuracy of a powder-free intraoral scanner: A laboratory study. J Prosthet Dent. 2017;117:93-101.
• de Villaumbrosia PG, Martínez-Rus F, García-Orejas A, Salido MP, Pradíes G. In vitro comparison of the accuracy (trueness and precision) of six extraoral dental scanners with different scanning technologies. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;116:543-50.
• Kurz M, Attin T, Mehl A. Influence of material surface on the scanning error of a powder-free 3D measuring system. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:2035-43.
• Mizumoto RM, Yilmaz B, McGlumphy Jr EA, Seidt J, Johnston WM. Accuracy of different digital scanning techniques and scan bodies for complete-arch implant-supported prostheses. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:96-104.
• Park S-W, Choi Y-D, Lee D-H. The effect of the improperly scanned scan body images on the accuracy of virtual implant positioning in computer-aided design software. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12:107-13.
• Choi Y-D, Lee KE, Mai H-N, Lee D-H. Effects of scan body exposure and operator on the accuracy of image matching of implant impressions with scan bodies. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;124:379.e1-379.e6.
• Gimenez‐Gonzalez B, Hassan B, Özcan M, Pradíes G. 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 Prosthodont. 2017;26:650-5.
• Giménez B, Pradíes G, Martínez-Rus F, Özcan M. Accuracy of two digital implant impression systems based on confocal microscopy with variations in customized software and clinical parameters. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2015;30:56-64.
• Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez‐Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2015;17:54-64.
• Giménez B, Özcan M, Martínez-Rus F, Pradíes G. Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active triangulation technology with blue light for implants: effect of clinically relevant parameters. Implant Dent. 2015;24:498-504.
• 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. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111:186-94.
• Li Y, Han W, Cao J, Iv Y, et al. Design of complete dentures by adopting CAD developed for fixed prostheses. J Prosthodont. 2018;27:212-9.
• Yamany SM, Farag AA. Surface signatures: an orientation independent free-form surface representation scheme for the purpose of objects registration and matching. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2002;24:1105-20.
• Petchmedyai P, Thanasrisuebwong P. Optimizing digital implant impressions: Evaluating the significance of scan body image deficiency and alignment under varied scan body exposures. PLoS One. 2023;18:e0291831.
• Kropfeld J, Berger L, Adler W, Schulz KL, et al. Impact of scanbody geometry and cad software on determining 3d implant position. Dent J. 2024;12:94.
• Gracis S, Appiani A, Noè G. Digital workflow in implant prosthodontics: the critical aspects for reliable accuracy. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2023;35:250-61.
• Schmidt A, Billig J-W, Schlenz MA, Wöstmann B. The influence of using different types of scan bodies on the transfer accuracy of implant position: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2021;34:254-60.
• Schmidt A, Billig J-W, Schlenz MA, Rehmann P, Wöstmann B. Influence of the accuracy of intraoral scanbodies on implant position: differences in manufacturing tolerances. Int J Prosthodont. 2019;32:430-2.
• Arcuri L, Pozzi A, Lio F, Rompen E, et al. Influence of implant scanbody material, position and operator on the accuracy of digital impression for complete-arch: A randomized in vitro trial. J Prosthodont Res. 2020;64:128-36.
• Hopfensperger LJ, Talmazov G, Ammoun R, Brenes C, Bencharit S. Accuracy of 3D printed scan bodies for dental implants using two additive manufacturing systems: An in vitro study. PLoS One. 2023;18:e0283305.
• Alvarez C, Domínguez P, Jiménez-Castellanos E, Arroyo G, Orozco A. How the geometry of the scan body affects the accuracy of digital impressions in implant supported prosthesis. In vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2022;14:e1008.
• Pan Y, Tsoi JK, Lam WY, Chen Z, Pow EH. Does the geometry of scan bodies affect the alignment accuracy of computer‐aided design in implant digital workflow: An in vitro study? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2022;33:313-21.
• Abduo J, Chen C, Le Breton E, Radu A, Szeto J, et al. The effect of coded healing abutments on treatment duration and clinical outcome: a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing encode and conventional impression protocols. Int J Maxillofac Implants. 2017;32:1172-9.
• Mahn DH, Prestipino T. CAD/CAM implant abutments using coded healing abutments: a detailed description of the restorative process. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013;34:612-5.
• Yilmaz B, Abou-Ayash S. A digital intraoral implant scan technique using a combined healing abutment and scan body system. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123:206-9
• Yilmaz B, Gouveia D, Marques VR, Diker E, et al. The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2021;110:103684.
• Jahn, D. Scan body for determination of positioning and orientation of a dental implant. Google Patents; 2014. United States. Patent number: US20140377714A1.
• Gómez-Polo M, Álvarez F, Ortega R, Gómez-Polo C, et al. Influence of the implant scan body bevel location, implant angulation and position on intraoral scanning accuracy: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2022;121:104122.
• Huang R, Liu Y, Huang B, Zhang C, et al. 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;31:625-33.
• Rudolph H, Quaas S, Luthardt R. Matching point clouds: limits and possibilities. Int J Comput Dent. 2002;5:155-64.
• Pan Y, Tsoi JKH, Lam WY, Zhao K, Pow EH. Improving intraoral implant scanning with a novel auxiliary device: An in‐vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2021;32:1466-73.
• Iturrate M, Eguiraun H, Solaberrieta E. Accuracy of digital impressions for implant‐supported complete‐arch prosthesis, using an auxiliary geometry part—An in vitro study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019;30:1250-8.
• Gómez-Polo M, Piedra-Cascón W, Methani MM, Quesada-Olmo N, Farjas-Abadia M, Revilla-León M. Influence of rescanning mesh holes and stitching procedures on the complete-arch scanning accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2021;110:103690.
• Nedelcu R, Olsson P, Thulin M, Nyström I, Thor A. In vivo trueness and precision of full-arch implant scans using intraoral scanners with three different acquisition protocols. J Dent. 2023;128:104308.
• Pozzi A, Arcuri L, Lio F, Papa A, et al. Accuracy of complete-arch digital implant impression with or without scanbody splinting: An in vitro study. J Dent. 2022;119:104072.
• Scanners I. Continuous scan strategy (CSS): a novel technique to improve the accuracy of intraoral digital impressions. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2020;28:1-14.
• Winkler S, Ring K, Ring JD, Boberick KG. Implant screw mechanics and the settling effect: an overview. J Oral Implantol. 2003;29:242-5.
• Kato T, Yasunami N, Furuhashi A, Sanda K, Ayukawa Y. Effects of autoclave sterilization and multiple use on implant scanbody deformation in vitro. Materials. 2022;15:7717.
• Kim J, Son K, Lee K-B. Displacement of scan body during screw tightening: A comparative in vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2020;12:307-15.
• Hashemi AM, Hasanzadeh M, Payaminia L, Alikhasi M. Effect of repeated use of different types of scan bodies on transfer accuracy of implant position. J Dent. 2023;24:410-6.
• Yuzbasioglu E, Kurt H, Turunc R, Bilir H. Comparison of digital and conventional impression techniques: evaluation of patients perception, treatment comfort, effectiveness and clinical outcomes. BMC Oral Health. 2014;14:1-7.
• Kumar A, Yap WT, Foo SL, Lee TK. Effects of sterilization cycles on PEEK for medical device application. Bioengineering. 2018;5:18.
• Prechtel A, Reymus M, Edelhoff D, Hickel R, Stawarczyk B. Comparison of various 3D printed and milled PAEK materials: Effect of printing direction and artificial aging on Martens parameters. Dent Mater. 2020;36:197-209.
• Diker E, Terzioglu H, Gouveia DN, Donmez MB, et al. Effect of material type, torque value, and sterilization on linear displacements of a scan body: An in vitro study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2023;25:419-25.