Journal of prosthodontic research · 2026
Influence of multiple use of titanium and PEEK scan bodies on scan precision after sterilization and thermal disinfection: An in vitro 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.
Völler Elisabeth, Güth Jan-Frederik, Heuser Sebastian, Schubert Oliver, Schweiger Josef, Graf Tobias
Аннотация
PURPOSE: We evaluated the influence of multiple uses of scan bodies after reprocessing cycles-steam sterilization and thermal disinfection-on the precision of implant position transfer.
METHODS: Six mandibular models with two implants in regions 34 and 36 were fabricated. The implants were scanned with an intraoral scanner using pairs of titanium (SB_T_Pr) and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (SB_P_Pr) scan bodies according to the manufacturers' recommendations. The scan body group underwent up to 15 standardized reprocessing cycles. The unreprocessed titanium group (SB_T_NPr) served as a control. Three-dimensional deviations (R) between the implant positions were calculated from the scanned STL datasets and statistically analyzed (P < 0.05).
RESULTS: A preliminary investigation demonstrated that 15 cycles of screwing in and out of the titanium or PEEK scan bodies did not influence subsequent measurements (P = 0.129, P = 0.215). The mean ΔR values were 38.9 ± 18.7 µm for SB_T_NPr and 42.6 ± 19.5 µm for SB_T_Pr. No significant differences in precision were found between the unprocessed and reprocessed titanium scan bodies within 15 cycles (P = 0.174). The mean ΔR value for SB_P_Pr was 27.1 ± 12.5 µm. In contrast, the PEEK scan bodies consistently showed significantly lower deviations than the titanium scan bodies (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: PEEK scan bodies demonstrate higher precision but may be limited by lower mechanical stability and their single-use concept. Titanium scan bodies, although slightly less precise, have proven to be mechanically robust and suitable for multiple reuses after the conducted reprocessing. Further clinical studies with extended re-processing cycles are required to confirm these findings.
METHODS: Six mandibular models with two implants in regions 34 and 36 were fabricated. The implants were scanned with an intraoral scanner using pairs of titanium (SB_T_Pr) and polyether ether ketone (PEEK) (SB_P_Pr) scan bodies according to the manufacturers' recommendations. The scan body group underwent up to 15 standardized reprocessing cycles. The unreprocessed titanium group (SB_T_NPr) served as a control. Three-dimensional deviations (R) between the implant positions were calculated from the scanned STL datasets and statistically analyzed (P < 0.05).
RESULTS: A preliminary investigation demonstrated that 15 cycles of screwing in and out of the titanium or PEEK scan bodies did not influence subsequent measurements (P = 0.129, P = 0.215). The mean ΔR values were 38.9 ± 18.7 µm for SB_T_NPr and 42.6 ± 19.5 µm for SB_T_Pr. No significant differences in precision were found between the unprocessed and reprocessed titanium scan bodies within 15 cycles (P = 0.174). The mean ΔR value for SB_P_Pr was 27.1 ± 12.5 µm. In contrast, the PEEK scan bodies consistently showed significantly lower deviations than the titanium scan bodies (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: PEEK scan bodies demonstrate higher precision but may be limited by lower mechanical stability and their single-use concept. Titanium scan bodies, although slightly less precise, have proven to be mechanically robust and suitable for multiple reuses after the conducted reprocessing. Further clinical studies with extended re-processing cycles are required to confirm these findings.