In vitro evaluation of the effect of auxiliary geometric device on measurement trueness and scanning time in fullarch implant impressions
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of clinically practical auxiliary geometric devices (AGD) on measurement trueness and scan time in full-arch implant-supported prostheses, focusing on different intraoral scanners (IOS) and implant angulations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four implants were planned in an edentulous maxillary arch and divided into two groups based on posterior implant angulation: Model A (Parallel) and Model B (30°). Each model was evaluated under three auxiliary geometric devices (AGD) application types (std, agd1, agd2), and scanned using three different ıintraoral scanners (IOSs) [3Shape Trios 3 (T), Medit i700 (M), and Cerec Primescan (PS)], resulting in nine groups per model (n = 10). Scanning times and faulty scans were recorded. A conventional impression (CON) was taken as a control and digitized with a desktop scanner. Trueness was analyzed using Geomagic Control X, with statistical significance set at P < .05. RESULTS. Group B had higher RMS values than Group A (40.3 µm vs. 34.7 µm). T_std in Group A (51.4 µm) and T_std (53.1 µm) and Con (50.7 µm) in Group B exceeded the acceptable deviation limit. AGDs reduced deviations to acceptable levels in the Trios 3. The Primescan scanner had the shortest scanning times. AGD use, especially in T_agd2 and M_agd2, shortened scan times and eliminated erroneous scans. CONCLUSION. The use of AGD has a significant impact on scanners’ scanning trueness and time. [J Adv Prosthodont 2025;17:197-209]
Abstract
PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of clinically practical auxiliary geometric devices (AGD) on measurement trueness and scan time in full-arch implant-supported prostheses, focusing on different intraoral scanners (IOS) and implant angulations. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Four implants were planned in an edentulous maxillary arch and divided into two groups based on posterior implant angulation: Model A (Parallel) and Model B (30°). Each model was evaluated under three auxiliary geometric devices (AGD) application types (std, agd1, agd2), and scanned using three different ıintraoral scanners (IOSs) [3Shape Trios 3 (T), Medit i700 (M), and Cerec Primescan (PS)], resulting in nine groups per model (n = 10). Scanning times and faulty scans were recorded. A conventional impression (CON) was taken as a control and digitized with a desktop scanner. Trueness was analyzed using Geomagic Control X, with statistical significance set at P < .05. RESULTS. Group B had higher RMS values than Group A (40.3 µm vs. 34.7 µm). T_std in Group A (51.4 µm) and T_std (53.1 µm) and Con (50.7 µm) in Group B exceeded the acceptable deviation limit. AGDs reduced deviations to acceptable levels in the Trios 3. The Primescan scanner had the shortest scanning times. AGD use, especially in T_agd2 and M_agd2, shortened scan times and eliminated erroneous scans. CONCLUSION. The use of AGD has a significant impact on scanners’ scanning trueness and time. [J Adv Prosthodont 2025;17:197-209]