The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Accuracy of immediate complete arch digital implant scans using oriented horizontal scan bodies: A clinical study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yi Xiaosong, Jiang Xi, Luo Jia, Ren Shuxin
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Complete arch implant scanning with an intraoral scanner (IOS) immediately after implant placement is challenging because of blood, saliva, and mobile soft tissues. It remains unclear whether oriented horizontal implant scan bodies (ISBs) can maintain accuracy under these conditions compared to stable laboratory scans.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the accuracy of immediate intraoral scans using oriented horizontal ISBs after complete arch implant placement and compared them with scans of corresponding stone casts under laboratory conditions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants receiving complete arch implant placement were included. Immediately after surgery, 2 recordings were obtained: an intraoral digital scan (immediate IOS) using oriented horizontal ISBs (ioConnect), and a conventional open-tray splinted impression. Stone casts from the conventional impressions served as the reference. The same ISBs were attached to the reference cast and scanned to generate the laboratory IOS dataset. Immediate and laboratory IOS datasets were superimposed on the reference cast using a standardized protocol. Four accuracy metrics were analyzed: root-mean-square (RMS) surface deviation, linear Euclidean deviation, angular deviation, and interimplant distance deviation. A 2-way mixed-effects ANOVA was used, with scanning workflow (immediate versus laboratory) as a within-subject factor and jaw type (maxilla versus mandible) as a between-subject factor (α=.05). All measurements were performed by a single calibrated examiner.
RESULTS: Twenty participants (20 arches) were analyzed. Laboratory IOS showed significantly lower deviations (higher trueness) than immediate IOS. RMS deviation was 0.043 ±0.017 mm for immediate IOS versus 0.030 ±0.017 mm for laboratory IOS (P=.002). Linear Euclidean deviation was 0.062 ±0.031 mm versus 0.036 ±0.020 mm (P<.001), and interimplant distance deviation was 0.071 ±0.047 mm versus 0.052 ±0.031 mm (P=.020). Angular deviation did not differ significantly (0.577 ±0.458 degrees versus 0.533 ±0.394 degrees, P=.399). Jaw type had no significant effect (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate IOS with oriented horizontal ISBs showed reduced linear and surface trueness compared to laboratory IOS, but overall accuracy remained within clinically acceptable limits for immediate complete arch rehabilitation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this clinical study was to assess the accuracy of immediate intraoral scans using oriented horizontal ISBs after complete arch implant placement and compared them with scans of corresponding stone casts under laboratory conditions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants receiving complete arch implant placement were included. Immediately after surgery, 2 recordings were obtained: an intraoral digital scan (immediate IOS) using oriented horizontal ISBs (ioConnect), and a conventional open-tray splinted impression. Stone casts from the conventional impressions served as the reference. The same ISBs were attached to the reference cast and scanned to generate the laboratory IOS dataset. Immediate and laboratory IOS datasets were superimposed on the reference cast using a standardized protocol. Four accuracy metrics were analyzed: root-mean-square (RMS) surface deviation, linear Euclidean deviation, angular deviation, and interimplant distance deviation. A 2-way mixed-effects ANOVA was used, with scanning workflow (immediate versus laboratory) as a within-subject factor and jaw type (maxilla versus mandible) as a between-subject factor (α=.05). All measurements were performed by a single calibrated examiner.
RESULTS: Twenty participants (20 arches) were analyzed. Laboratory IOS showed significantly lower deviations (higher trueness) than immediate IOS. RMS deviation was 0.043 ±0.017 mm for immediate IOS versus 0.030 ±0.017 mm for laboratory IOS (P=.002). Linear Euclidean deviation was 0.062 ±0.031 mm versus 0.036 ±0.020 mm (P<.001), and interimplant distance deviation was 0.071 ±0.047 mm versus 0.052 ±0.031 mm (P=.020). Angular deviation did not differ significantly (0.577 ±0.458 degrees versus 0.533 ±0.394 degrees, P=.399). Jaw type had no significant effect (P>.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Immediate IOS with oriented horizontal ISBs showed reduced linear and surface trueness compared to laboratory IOS, but overall accuracy remained within clinically acceptable limits for immediate complete arch rehabilitation.