Journal of dentistry · 2025
Influence of three coded healing abutment design on intraoral scan accuracy: a comparative in vitro study.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Morón-Conejo Belén, Stran-Lo Giudice Ana Federica, Salido María Paz, Berrendero Santiago, Madrigal Cristina, Pradíes Guillermo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the trueness and precision of three coded healing abutment (CHA) systems -Bellatek Encode (BE; ZimVie), iPhysio (IP; Lyra ETK), and Encode Emergence (EE; ZimVie)- for transferring 3D implant position via intraoral digital impressions in vitro.
METHODS: A mandibular epoxy-resin model with four internal‑hex implants at sites 3.5, 3.6, 4.3, and 4.6. served as the reference. Each CHA was torqued to 15 Ncm and scanned in six rotational orientations using an intraoral scanner (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona). STL files were trimmed and divided into anterior and posterior segments. Scans were superimposed on an extraoral reference scan (E4, 3Shape) using a best-fit algorithm in Geomagic. Three-dimensional deviations, 2D axial slices, and angular discrepancies were quantified. Trueness (mean deviations, RMS) and precision (standard deviation) were analyzed. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis with Mann-Whitney U post hoc tests (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Group IP exhibited significantly lower 3D mean deviation (49.9 ± 95.4 µm) and RMS (91.5 ± 147.4 µm) than groups BE and EE, and superior precision (72.4 ± 117.5 µm; p < 0.01). In 2D analyses, IP achieved the lowest mean trueness (32.4 ± 87.6 µm) and RMS (76.6 ± 112.5 µm) compared with the other groups (p < 0.01). Segmental analyses revealed greater angular deviations at posterior implant sites, particularly for group EE.
CONCLUSIONS: The IP CHA system demonstrates superior dimensional accuracy and reproducibility compared with BE and EE. Posterior implant position amplify angular deviations, emphasizing the critical role of abutment geometry and implant positioning digital-impression fidelity.
METHODS: A mandibular epoxy-resin model with four internal‑hex implants at sites 3.5, 3.6, 4.3, and 4.6. served as the reference. Each CHA was torqued to 15 Ncm and scanned in six rotational orientations using an intraoral scanner (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona). STL files were trimmed and divided into anterior and posterior segments. Scans were superimposed on an extraoral reference scan (E4, 3Shape) using a best-fit algorithm in Geomagic. Three-dimensional deviations, 2D axial slices, and angular discrepancies were quantified. Trueness (mean deviations, RMS) and precision (standard deviation) were analyzed. Intergroup comparisons were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis with Mann-Whitney U post hoc tests (α=0.05).
RESULTS: Group IP exhibited significantly lower 3D mean deviation (49.9 ± 95.4 µm) and RMS (91.5 ± 147.4 µm) than groups BE and EE, and superior precision (72.4 ± 117.5 µm; p < 0.01). In 2D analyses, IP achieved the lowest mean trueness (32.4 ± 87.6 µm) and RMS (76.6 ± 112.5 µm) compared with the other groups (p < 0.01). Segmental analyses revealed greater angular deviations at posterior implant sites, particularly for group EE.
CONCLUSIONS: The IP CHA system demonstrates superior dimensional accuracy and reproducibility compared with BE and EE. Posterior implant position amplify angular deviations, emphasizing the critical role of abutment geometry and implant positioning digital-impression fidelity.