Non-invasive oral implant position assessment: An ex vivo study using a 3D industrial scan as the reference model to mimic the clinical situation

Aim: To introduce an objective method to evaluate the accuracy of implant position assessment in partially edentulous patients by comparing different techniques (conventional impression, intraoral scan, CBCT) to a reference 3D model obtained with an industrial scanner, the latter mimicking the clinical situation.Materials and methods: Twenty-nine implants were placed in four human cadaver heads using a fully guided flapless protocol. Implant position was assessed using (a) a conventional impression, (b) an intraoral scan, and (c) CBCT and compared to an industrial scan. Three-dimensional models of intraoral scan body and implant were registered to the arch models and the deviation at implant shoulder, apex, and the angle of deviation were compared to each other as well as to the reference model.Results: The three assessment techniques showed statistically significant deviations (p < .01) from the industrial scan, for all measurements, with no difference between the techniques. The maximum deviation at the implant shoulder was 0.16 mm. At the implant apex this increased to 0.38 mm. The intraoral scan deviated significantly more than the CBCT (0.12 mm, p < .01) and the conventional impression (0.10 mm, p = .02). The maximum implant angle deviation was 1.0 degrees. The intraoral scan deviated more than the conventional impression (0.3 degrees, p = .02).Conclusion: All assessment techniques deviated from the reference industrial scan, but the differences were relatively small. Intraoral scans were slightly less accurate than both conventional impressions and CBCT. Depending on the application, however, this inaccuracy may not be clinically relevant.

Automated summary

The aim of this study was to introduce an objective method for evaluating the accuracy of implant position assessment in partially edentulous patients. Different techniques (conventional impression, intraoral scan, CBCT) were compared to an industrial scanner to obtain a reference 3D model. The results showed that all assessment techniques deviated from the reference industrial scan, with intraoral scans being slightly less accurate than both conventional impressions and CBCT.