Accuracy and clinical passive fit of reverse and standard scan body protocols for complete-arch implant-supported digital impressions: An in vitro study.
{"title":"Accuracy and clinical passive fit of reverse and standard scan body protocols for complete-arch implant-supported digital impressions: An in vitro study.","authors":"Rabia Kilicaslan Dasdelen, Ikbal Leblebicioglu Kurtulus, Kerem Kilic","doi":"10.1111/jopr.70241","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the reverse scan body (RSB) and standard scan body (SCB) protocols for complete-arch implant-supported digital impressions with respect to root mean square (RMS), linear deviation, and angular deviation values, as well as clinical passive fit.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Configurations with four and six implants were created on edentulous maxillary and mandibular casts. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner using the standard and RSB protocols (10 scans per subgroup; 80 datasets total) and superimposed onto reference datasets acquired with a laboratory scanner. RMS, linear, and angular deviation values were calculated. Clinical passive fit of cobalt-chromium verification jigs fabricated from digital data was evaluated by visual inspection, screw-resistance test, and radiographic assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total RMS values did not differ significantly between the standard and RSB protocols (0.0384 ± 0.0017 vs. 0.0395 ± 0.0012 mm; p = 0.530), although the scan protocol × jaw interaction was significant (p = 0.001). In four-implant casts, the RSB protocol demonstrated significantly lower linear deviation than the SCB protocol (0.0618 vs. 0.0951 mm; p < 0.001); in six-implant casts, no main effect of protocol was found, although several interactions were significant. Angular deviation findings were configuration-dependent. Clinical passive fit was acceptable in 95% of verification jigs fabricated with the RSB protocol and 90% of verification jigs fabricated with the SCB protocol.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the RSB protocol demonstrated accuracy comparable to the SCB protocol, with more stable implant position transfer in four-implant configurations and a high clinical passive fit rate, supporting its use as a reliable alternative in complete-arch digital implant workflows.</p>","PeriodicalId":49152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.70241","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare the reverse scan body (RSB) and standard scan body (SCB) protocols for complete-arch implant-supported digital impressions with respect to root mean square (RMS), linear deviation, and angular deviation values, as well as clinical passive fit.
Materials and methods: Configurations with four and six implants were created on edentulous maxillary and mandibular casts. Digital impressions were obtained with an intraoral scanner using the standard and RSB protocols (10 scans per subgroup; 80 datasets total) and superimposed onto reference datasets acquired with a laboratory scanner. RMS, linear, and angular deviation values were calculated. Clinical passive fit of cobalt-chromium verification jigs fabricated from digital data was evaluated by visual inspection, screw-resistance test, and radiographic assessment.
Results: Total RMS values did not differ significantly between the standard and RSB protocols (0.0384 ± 0.0017 vs. 0.0395 ± 0.0012 mm; p = 0.530), although the scan protocol × jaw interaction was significant (p = 0.001). In four-implant casts, the RSB protocol demonstrated significantly lower linear deviation than the SCB protocol (0.0618 vs. 0.0951 mm; p < 0.001); in six-implant casts, no main effect of protocol was found, although several interactions were significant. Angular deviation findings were configuration-dependent. Clinical passive fit was acceptable in 95% of verification jigs fabricated with the RSB protocol and 90% of verification jigs fabricated with the SCB protocol.
Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the RSB protocol demonstrated accuracy comparable to the SCB protocol, with more stable implant position transfer in four-implant configurations and a high clinical passive fit rate, supporting its use as a reliable alternative in complete-arch digital implant workflows.
目的：本体外研究的目的是比较反扫描体（RSB）和标准扫描体（SCB）方案在全弓种植体支持的数字印模的均方根（RMS）、线性偏差和角偏差值以及临床被动配合方面的差异。材料和方法：在无牙的上颌和下颌铸造上分别制作4个和6个种植体。使用标准和RSB协议（每亚组10次扫描，共80个数据集）通过口内扫描仪获得数字印象，并将其叠加到实验室扫描仪获得的参考数据集上。计算均方根、线性和角偏差值。通过目视检查、螺钉阻力试验和影像学评估，对数字数据制作的钴铬验证夹具进行临床被动配合评价。结果：标准方案与RSB方案的总RMS值无显著差异（0.0384±0.0017 vs 0.0395±0.0012 mm; p = 0.530），尽管扫描方案与颌骨的相互作用显著（p = 0.001）。在四种植体铸型中，RSB方案显示出明显低于SCB方案的线性偏差（0.0618 vs 0.0951 mm）； p结论：在体外研究的局限性内，RSB方案显示出与SCB方案相当的准确性，在四种植体配置中具有更稳定的种植体位置转移和较高的临床被动契合率，支持其作为全弓数字种植工作流程的可靠替代方案。
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Prosthodontics promotes the advanced study and practice of prosthodontics, implant, esthetic, and reconstructive dentistry. It is the official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists, the American Dental Association-recognized voice of the Specialty of Prosthodontics. The journal publishes evidence-based original scientific articles presenting information that is relevant and useful to prosthodontists. Additionally, it publishes reports of innovative techniques, new instructional methodologies, and instructive clinical reports with an interdisciplinary flair. The journal is particularly focused on promoting the study and use of cutting-edge technology and positioning prosthodontists as the early-adopters of new technology in the dental community.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
