| Sumario: | Objectives: The objectives of this study are to determine whether scannable healing abutment (SHA) geometry affects implant‐impression accuracy compared with conventional scan bodies (SBs) and to assess the effect of a detachable cap on SHA accuracy. Methods: Three partially edentulous mandibular models were fabricated, each with two implants at the right second premolar and first molar, corresponding to three implant systems: IS‐III active (Neobiotech), TS‐III (Osstem), and Bright tissue level (Dentium). For each system, scans were obtained with SBs and SHAs; in the Bright system, a detachable‐cap SHA (SHAC‐B) was additionally tested. The seven groups were SB‐I, SB‐T, SB‐B, SHA‐I, SHA‐T, SHA‐B, and SHAC‐B (n = 10 scans per group). Reference datasets were acquired with a laboratory scanner (inEos X5), and intraoral scans were obtained with an intraoral scanner (Primescan, Dentsply Sirona). Implants were reconstructed in exocad Dental CAD 2.2 and analyzed in Geomagic Control X after best fit alignment to adjacent teeth. Outcomes were 3D linear and implant angular deviations. Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests compared SBs with SHAs within each system and SHA‐B with SHAC‐B; differences among SHA‐I, SHA‐T, and SHA‐B were assessed with Kruskal–Wallis tests and Bonferroni‐adjusted pairwise comparisons (α = 0.05). Results: 3D linear deviations were < 70 μm for all groups except SHAC‐B. For 3D linear deviation, p values (second premolar, first molar) were 0.017, 0.139 (SB‐I vs. SHA‐I); 0.005, 0.013 (SB‐T vs. SHA‐T); and 0.241, 0.169 (SB‐B vs. SHA‐B). Corresponding angular p values were 0.005, 0.005; 0.005, 0.005; and 0.074, 0.017, respectively. In the Bright system, adding a cap (SHA‐B vs. SHAC‐B) reduced accuracy (linear 0.009, 0.037; angular 0.005, 0.005). Among SHA groups, differences occurred only at the second premolar, where SHA‐B differed from SHA‐I and SHA‐T; no differences were observed at the first molar. Conclusions: SHA geometry influenced implant‐impression accuracy, yet deviations were generally within clinically acceptable ranges. Cap application reduced accuracy, highlighting the need to optimize cap design and connection.
|
|---|