Assessment of distortion of intraoral scans of edentulous mandibular arch made with a 2-step scanning strategy: A clinical study.

Statement Of Problem: Manufacturers of several intraoral scanners have recommended a 2-step strategy for scanning the edentulous mandible. The 2-step technique requires scanning one side first and then moving to the other side. However, whether inconsistency in stitching occurs that results in loss of accuracy or distortion is unclear.

Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to measure the potential distortion of intraoral scans of edentulous mandibular arches made with a 2-step scanning strategy and to assess their differences with conventional impressions.

Material And Methods: Twenty mandibular edentulous arches were scanned by 1 investigator with an intraoral scanner using a 2-step scanning strategy, and a corresponding polysulfide conventional impression was obtained. The conventional impression was then immediately scanned with the same intraoral scanner. The obtained standard tessellation language (STL) files were superimposed with a surface-matching software program. After a preliminary alignment, the STL meshes were trimmed and reoriented; then, the final alignment was carried out and meshes moved to a metrology software program where their mean distance was measured. In addition, a surface curve (SIOS) was traced on the intraoral scan from the right to left retromolar pad along the residual ridge and automatically projected onto to the conventional impression scan to obtain a new curve (SC). The mean distance between SIOS and SC was measured and recorded as an indicator of the distortion by considering the X-, Y-, and Z-axes and the overall 3-dimensional (3D) deviation. The analysis was performed for the full curve length and after dividing it into 6 regions of interest. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were used to investigate the significance of the extent of the mean 3D distance, as well as the effects of measurement positions (side and region) between and within patients on differences along the X-, Y-, and Z-axes (α=.05).

Results: The mean (-0.08 mm; standard error: 0.025) 3D distance between the intraoral scan and conventional impression was significantly different from zero (P=.003). No significant effect of the factor "side" was found by using generalized estimated equation models for the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, and global 3D deviations between SIOS and SC (P>.05), which appeared to exclude distortion. Conversely, a significant effect was found for the factor "region" (P<.05), with no significant differences (P>.05) between corresponding regions on the 2 sides.

Conclusions: Intraoral scans of the edentulous mandibular arch made in a 2-step procedure did not exhibit significant distortion in comparison with conventional impressions.