Background <p>Alignment accuracy in digital impressions is critical for implant-supported prostheses. This in vitro study evaluated the effects of scan body modifications and alignment software on digital impression accuracy.</p> Materials and methods <p>A printed maxillary model with a unilateral distal edentulous area included analogs at positions No. 25 and No. 27. Three scan body groups were tested: unmodified (M0), additive (M+), and subtractive (M−). Each was scanned 10 times using an intraoral scanner. Alignment was performed in Exocad and Medit Link software. Experimental scans were compared with a reference model using the best-fit method. Linear and angular.</p> Results&#xa0; <p>Mean linear deviations ranged from 0.04–0.07 mm and angular deviations from 0.23°–0.63°. Medit Link produced significantly lower deviations than Exocad (p &lt; 0.001, p = 0.001). Unmodified scan bodies showed the highest accuracy, and implant position also influenced results (p &lt; 0.001).</p> Conclusions <p>Both scan body modifications and alignment software significantly&#xa0;affected matching accuracy. Appropriate software can reduce implant&#xa0;misfits and improve prosthetic outcomes. These preclinical findings&#xa0;highlight the potential of advanced algorithms-based alignment&#xa0;approaches to enhance reliability under challenging conditions.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Alignment optimization in digital implantology: evaluating the role of scan body modifications and different software

  • Damla Bilgin Avsar,
  • Ahmet Atila Ertan

摘要

Background

Alignment accuracy in digital impressions is critical for implant-supported prostheses. This in vitro study evaluated the effects of scan body modifications and alignment software on digital impression accuracy.

Materials and methods

A printed maxillary model with a unilateral distal edentulous area included analogs at positions No. 25 and No. 27. Three scan body groups were tested: unmodified (M0), additive (M+), and subtractive (M−). Each was scanned 10 times using an intraoral scanner. Alignment was performed in Exocad and Medit Link software. Experimental scans were compared with a reference model using the best-fit method. Linear and angular.

Results 

Mean linear deviations ranged from 0.04–0.07 mm and angular deviations from 0.23°–0.63°. Medit Link produced significantly lower deviations than Exocad (p < 0.001, p = 0.001). Unmodified scan bodies showed the highest accuracy, and implant position also influenced results (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Both scan body modifications and alignment software significantly affected matching accuracy. Appropriate software can reduce implant misfits and improve prosthetic outcomes. These preclinical findings highlight the potential of advanced algorithms-based alignment approaches to enhance reliability under challenging conditions.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.