Effect of scan powder and scanning technology on measured deviations of complete-arch implant supported frameworks digitized with industrial and intraoral scanners.

Objectives: To evaluate the suitability of intraoral scanners (IOSs) to analyze the fabrication trueness of titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks by comparing with an industrial-grade scanner and investigate how anti-reflective scan powder affects measured deviations.

Methods: Ten titanium complete-arch implant-supported frameworks were milled from a reference standard tessellation language (STL) file. An industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80 (AT)) and three IOSs (Primescan (PS), TRIOS T3 (T3), and TRIOS T4 (T4)) with (PS-P, T3-P, and T4-P) or without (PS, T3, and T4) anti-reflective scan powder application were used to generate test STL (TSTL) files of the frameworks. Reference STL and TSTLs were imported into a metrology-grade analysis software (Geomagic Control X) and whole surface root mean square (RMS) values were calculated. Another software (Medit Link v 2.4.4) was used to virtually isolate marginal surfaces of all STL files and marginal RMS values were calculated by using the same metrology-grade analysis software. A linear mixed effects model was used to compare the transformed deviations of the scans performed by using each IOS (with or without powder) with the deviations of those performed by using the reference AT scanner within each surface, where a Box-Cox type transformation was used for variance stability. Bonferroni corrected post-hoc tests were used to compare conditions within each IOS (α=0.05).

Results: All IOSs had significantly higher whole surface and marginal RMS values than AT, regardless of the condition (P≤.002). However, scan powder application did not affect the whole surface and marginal RMS values in scans of tested IOSs (P≥.054).

Conclusion: Measured whole surface and marginal deviations in all IOS scans performed with or without the use of scan powder were higher than those in AT scans. The application of anti-reflective scan powder did not affect the deviations in scans of tested IOSs.

Clinical Significance: Even though deviations measured in the scans of tested scanners were significantly different than those in the reference scanner, the maximum raw mean difference was 37.33 µm and the maximum raw confidence interval value of estimated differences was 47.88 µm, which can be considered clinically small taking into account the size of the frameworks tested. Therefore, tested intraoral scanners may be feasible to scan prostheses similar to or smaller than tested frameworks for fabrication trueness analysis, which may facilitate potential clinical adjustments.