Full Digital Workflow for Use of a Scanbody to Accurately Transfer Morphology from Provisional to Final Implant-Supported Fixed Restoration

Figure 1. Panoramic radiographs of the patient after installation of the implant body. An implant body was placed in the right mandibular second molar region (#31). Figure 2. Intraoral view of the patient. A screw-retained provisional restoration was installed in the right mandibular second molar region and adjusted in order to achieve satisfactory oral function and cleansability. (a) Mandibular occlusal view; (b) right-side lateral view.

Digital images acquired with an intraoral scanner for transfer of the morphology of the provisional restoration to the final restoration. (a) Intraoral three-dimensional (3D) morphology data of the whole mandible with the provisional restoration (#31) installed. (b) Intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole mandible with an implant scanbody connected to the implant body placed in the region of tooth #31. (c) 3D morphology data of the provisional restoration via an implant replica buried in a plaster model to prevent the movement of the provisional restoration during the scanning process. (d) Intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole maxillary dental arch. (e) Intraoral 3D morphology data of both the maxillary and mandibular dental arches occluded at the intercuspal position.

Figure 4. Images of the intraoral three-dimensional (3D) morphology data of the whole mandible with the provisional restoration installed and the intraoral 3D morphology data of the whole mandible with the implant scanbody (a) were superimposed on the 3D position (b) using the least mean squares method with reference to the surface morphology of the remaining teeth and gingival mucosa (c). Figure 5. The image of the 3D surface image of the provisional restoration” was superimposed on the image in Figure 4b to reflect the formation of soft tissue around the provisional restorations (a, b). These two images were superimposed using the least mean squares method with reference to the surface morphology of the provisional restoration (c).

Occlusal (a) and lateral (b) views of the final design of the reproduced form of the superstructure using computer-aided design software. The borderline between the abutment and the final restoration was determined from the form of the provisional restoration by referencing the information of the form of soft tissues around the provisional restoration (c). Subsequently, the customized titanium abutment was designed (d). Fabricated customized titanium abutment and final restoration (e, f).

Occlusal (a), lateral (b), and distal (c) views of the provisional (right side) and final (left side) restorations. Volumetric discrepancies were calculated using superimposed images of the scanned data of the final and provisional restorations. The total volumetric discrepancy in the convex/concave portions between the final and provisional restorations was 22.7 mm³ (d).

Intraoral view of the patient after installation of the final implant restoration in the region of tooth #31. (a), Mandibular occlusal view; (b) right-side lateral view.