Effect of geometric heterogeneity using an auxiliary device on the accuracy of complete arch implant scanning: An in vitro study of different clinical simulations

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:Intraoral scanning of implants supporting complete arch prostheses is limited because of the lack of geometric heterogeneity and unique reference points, creating inherent errors in the image stitching process by the scanner software program. PURPOSE:The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the significance of geometric heterogeneity on complete arch implant scanning by using a novel auxiliary geometric device. Three different clinical simulations were tested to assess its significance. The study also assessed whether scans produced using the auxiliary device would meet a clinically acceptable threshold. MATERIAL AND METHODS:A total of 60 scans (n=20) were performed using an intraoral scanner in 3 different clinical simulations: 2 parallel implants, 4 parallel implants, and 4 implants with a 30-degree posterior angulation of the distal implants. Scanning alternated between using the auxiliary geometric scanning device (test groups; 4IP+, 4IA+, 2IP+) and not using the device (control groups; 4IP-, 4IA-, 2IP-). A reference scan for each model was prepared from a high precision laboratory scanner. The scans were analyzed for accuracy in 3-dimensional deviation, interimplant distance deviation, and angular deviation by using an inspection software program. The effect of the auxiliary device was statistically analyzed by comparing scans of the same group using the paired t test for normally distributed data and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test when data were not normally distributed (α=.05). RESULTS:Significant effects of the auxiliary geometric device were found in 3-dimensional, distance and angular deviations (P<.05). Scans performed using the device were significantly more accurate in most implant positions (P<.05). Linear and angular deviations were clinically acceptable for all test groups. However, the deviations were above the clinically acceptable threshold for the control groups. CONCLUSIONS:Using an auxiliary geometric device significantly improved scanning accuracy and produced scans with clinically acceptable deviations, while standard digital scans exceeded the accepted clinical threshold.