Comparison of 3D accuracy of three different digital intraoral scanners in full-arch implant impressions
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0°, 5°, 0°, 0°, 15°, and 0° in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured. RESULTS. While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 μm, the values of 104 μm and 171 μm were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively (P = .001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners (P < .001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185°, the values of 0.499° and 1.250° were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values (P > .05). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group.
Abstract
PURPOSE. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the performance of digital intraoral scanners in a completely edentulous patient with angled and parallel implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS. A total of 6 implants were placed at angulations of 0°, 5°, 0°, 0°, 15°, and 0° in regions #36, #34, #32, #42, #44, and #46, respectively, in a completely edentulous mandibular polyurethane model. Then, the study model created by connecting a scan body on the implants was scanned using a model scanner, and a 3D reference model was obtained. Three different intraoral scanners were used for digital impressions (PS group, TR group, and CS group, n = 10 in each group). The distances and angles between the scan bodies in these measurement groups were measured. RESULTS. While the Primescan (PS) impression group had the highest accuracy with 38 μm, the values of 104 μm and 171 μm were obtained with Trios 4 IOSs (TR) and Carestream 3600 (CS), respectively (P = .001). The CS scanner constituted the impression group with the highest deviation in terms of accuracy. In terms of dimensional differences in the angle parameter, a statistically significant difference was revealed among the mean deviation angle values according to the scanners (P < .001). While the lowest angular deviation was obtained with the PS impression group with 0.185°, the values of 0.499° and 1.250° were obtained with TR and CS, respectively. No statistically significant difference was detected among the impression groups in terms of precision values (P > .05). CONCLUSION. A statistically significant difference was found among the three digital impression groups upon comparing the impression accuracy. Implant angulation affected the impression accuracy of the digital impression groups. The most accurate impressions in terms of both distance and angle deviation were obtained with the PS impression group.
참고문헌 (32)
- Ahlholm P, "Digital versus conventional impressions in fixed prosthodontics : a review", J Prosthodont, 27, pp.35~41 (2018)
- Albayrak B, "Three-dimensional accuracy of conventional versus digital complete arch implant impressions", J Prosthodont, 30, pp.163~170 (2021)
- Mangano FG, "Trueness of 12 intraoral scanners in the full-arch implant impression : a comparative in vitro study", BMC Oral Health, 20, pp.263~ (2020)
- Ender A, "In vivo precision of conventional and digital methods of obtaining complete-arch dental impressions", J Prosthet Dent, 115, pp.313~320 (2016)
- Dutton E, "The effect different substrates have on the trueness and precision of eight different intraoral scanners", J Esthet Restor Dent, 32, pp.204~218 (2020)
- Mangano FG, "Trueness and precision of 5intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants : a comparative in vitro study", BMC Oral Health, 19, pp.101~ (2019)
- Revilla-León M, "Intraoral digital scans : part 2-influence of ambient scanning light conditions on the mesh quality of different intraoral scanners", J Prosthet Dent, 124, pp.575~580 (2020)
- Revilla-León M, "Clinical Study of the Influence of Ambient Light Scanning Conditions on the Accuracy(Trueness and Precision)of an Intraoral Scanner", J Prosthodont, 29, pp.107~113 (2020)
- Haddadi Y, "Effect of software version on the accuracy of an intraoral scanning device", Int J Prosthodont, 31, pp.375~376 (2018)
- Imburgia M, "Accuracy of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology : a comparative in vitro study", BMC Oral Health, 17, pp.92~ (2017)
- Amin S, "Digital vs. conventional full-arch implant impressions: a comparative study", Clin Oral Implants Res, 28, pp.1360~1367 (2017)
- Mangano FG, "Trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology : a comparative in vitro study", PLoS One, 11, pp.e0163107~ (2016)
- Kamimura E, "In vivo evaluation of inter-operator reproducibility of digital dental and conventional impression techniques", PLoS One, 12, pp.e0179188~ (2017)
- Giménez B, "Accuracy of a digital impression system based on active wavefront sampling technology for implants considering operator experience, implant angulation, and depth", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 17(Suppl 1), pp.e54~64 (2015)
- Latham J, "Effect of scan pattern on complete-arch scans with 4 digital scanners", J Prosthet Dent, 123, pp.85~95 (2020)
- Arakida T, "Evaluating the influence of ambient light on scanning trueness, precision, and time of intra oral scanner", J Prosthodont Res, 62, pp.324~329 (2018)
- Sorrentino R, "Effect of implant angulation, connection length, and impression material on the dimensional accuracy of implant impressions: an in vitro comparative study", Clin Implant Dent Relat Res, 12(Suppl 1), pp.e63~76 (2010)
- Osman MS, "Implant impression accuracy of parallel and non-parallel implants : a comparative in-vitro analysis of open and closed tray techniques", Int J Implant Dent, 5, pp.4~ (2019)
- Kurtulmus-Yilmaz S, "Digital evaluation of the accuracy of impression techniques and materials in angulated implants", J Dent, 42, pp.1551~1559 (2014)
- Alikhasi M, "Accuracy of implant position transfer and surface detail reproduction with different impression materials and techniques", J Dent(Tehran), 12, pp.774~783 (2015)
- Passos L, "Impact of different scanning strategies on the accuracy of two current intraoral scanning systems in complete-arch impressions : an in vitro study", Int J Comput Dent, 22, pp.307~319 (2019)
- Gedrimiene A, "In vitro study on digital splint effect to the accuracy of digital dental implant impression", Clin Oral Implants Res, 30, pp.365~ (2019)
- Kaya G, "Comparison of the digital measuremet systems used in dentistry", Master, pp.2021
- Giménez B, "Accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal laser technology for implants with consideration of operator experience and implant angulation and depth", Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants, 29, pp.853~862 (2014)
- Flügge TV, "Precision of dental implant digitization using intraoral scanners", Int J Prosthodont, 29, pp.277~283 (2016)
- Cincioğlu M, "Factors which effects the dental implants digital impression", Doctor, pp.2018
- Mangano F, "Intraoral scanners in dentistry : a review of the current literature", BMC Oral Health, 17, pp.149~ (2017)
- Robles-Medina M, "Digital intraoral impression methods : an update on accuracy", Curr Oral Health Rep, 7, pp.361~375 (2020)
- Moura RV, "Evaluation of the accuracy of conventional and digital impression techniques for implant restorations", J Prosthodont, 28, pp.e530~5 (2019)
- Andriessen FS, "Applicability and accuracy of an intraoral scanner for scanning multiple implants in edentulous mandibles : a pilot study", J Prosthet Dent, 111, pp.186~194 (2014)
- Mizumoto RM, "Intraoral scan bodies in implant dentistry : A systematic review", J Prosthet Dent, 120, pp.343~352 (2018)
- Seelbach P, "Accuracy of digital and conventional impression techniques and workflow", Clin Oral Investig, 17, pp.1759~1764 (2013)