ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the accuracy of digital complete‐arch implant impressions with prefabricated aids using three intraoral scanners (IOSs) and explore the correlation between virtual deviation measurement and physical framework misfit.Materials and MethodsFour edentulous maxillary master models with four and six parallel and angular implants were fabricated and scanned by a laboratory scanner as reference scans. Ten scans of each master model were acquired using three IOSs (IOS‐T, IOS‐M, and IOS‐A) with and without prefabricated aids. Trueness and precision of root mean square (RMS) errors were measured. Ten aluminum alloy frameworks were fabricated, and the misfit was measured with a micro‐computed tomography scan with one screw tightened.ResultsTrueness and precision showed significant improvement when prefabricated aids were used for all three IOSs (p < 0.010). Median (interquartile range) RMS errors of trueness reduced from 67.5 (30.4) to 61.8 (30.3) μm, from 100.6 (35.4) to 45.9 (15.1) μm, and from 52.7 (33.2) to 41.1 (22.5) μm for scanner IOS‐T, IOS‐M, and IOS‐A, respectively (p < 0.010). The precision of IOS‐A and IOS‐M was significantly better than IOS‐T when using prefabricated aid (p < 0.001). RMS errors and the maximum marginal misfit of the framework were significantly correlated (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.845).ConclusionsWith the prefabricated aids, the accuracy of IOSs enhanced significantly in digital complete‐arch implant impressions. Three IOSs showed different levels of improvement in accuracy. Virtual RMS errors <62.2 μm could be the clinically acceptable threshold (150 μm) for framework passive fit.

中文翻译：

---

不同口内扫描仪与预制辅助装置对数字化全牙弓种植体印模的准确性和框架被动配合的比较：一项体外研究


目的本研究旨在比较使用三台口内扫描仪 (IOS) 的数字化全牙弓种植体印模与预制辅助工具的准确性，并探讨虚拟偏差测量与物理框架失配之间的相关性。 材料和方法四个无牙颌主模型，具有四个和六个平行和制作有角度的植入物并通过实验室扫描仪进行扫描作为参考扫描。使用三个 IOS（IOS-T、IOS-M 和 IOS-A）在有或没有预制辅助设备的情况下对每个主模型进行十次扫描。测量了均方根 (RMS) 误差的真实性和精度。制作了十个铝合金框架，并在拧紧一颗螺钉的情况下通过微型计算机断层扫描测量了错位。结果当所有三个 IOS 使用预制辅助工具时，真实性和精确度显示出显着改善（p < 0.010）。对于扫描仪 IOS，真实度的中值（四分位距）RMS 误差从 67.5 (30.4) μm 减少到 61.8 (30.3) μm，从 100.6 (35.4) μm 减少到 45.9 (15.1) μm，从 52.7 (33.2) μm 减少到 41.1 (22.5) μm分别为 T、IOS-M 和 IOS-A (p < 0.010)。使用预制辅助设备时，IOS-A 和 IOS-M 的精度明显优于 IOS-T (p < 0.001)。 RMS 误差和框架的最大边缘失配显着相关（p < 0.001，R2 = 0.845）。 结论 使用预制辅助工具，IOS 在数字化全牙弓种植体印模中的准确性显着提高。三个 IOS 在准确性方面表现出了不同程度的提高。虚拟 RMS 误差 <62.2 μm 可能是框架被动配合的临床可接受阈值 (150 μm)。