PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal red laser technology, taking into consideration clinical parameters such as operator experience and angulation and depth of implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary master model with six implants (located bilaterally in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions) was fitted with six polyether ether ketone scan bodies. One second premolar implant was placed with 30 degrees of mesial angulation; the opposite implant was positioned with 30 degrees of distal angulation. The lateral incisor implants were placed 2 or 4 mm subgingivally. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed intraoral scanning. Five different interimplant distances were then measured. The files obtained from the scans were imported with reverse-engineering software. Measurements were then made with a coordinate measurement machine, with values from the master model used as reference values. The deviations from the actual values were then calculated. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and the effects of different implant angulations and depths were compared statistically. RESULTS: Overall, operator 3 obtained significantly less accurate results. The angulated implants did not significantly influence accuracy compared to the parallel implants. Differences were found in the amount of error in the different quadrants. The second scanned quadrant had significantly worse results than the first scanned quadrant. Impressions of the implants placed at the tissue level were less accurate than implants placed 2 and 4 mm subgingivally. CONCLUSIONS: The operator affected the accuracy of measurements, but the performance of the operator was not necessarily dependent on experience. Angulated implants did not decrease the accuracy of the digital impression system tested. The scanned distance affected the predictability of the accuracy of the scanner, and the error increased with the increased length of the scanned section.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of a digital impression system based on parallel confocal red laser technology, taking into consideration clinical parameters such as operator experience and angulation and depth of implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A maxillary master model with six implants (located bilaterally in the second molar, second premolar, and lateral incisor positions) was fitted with six polyether ether ketone scan bodies. One second premolar implant was placed with 30 degrees of mesial angulation; the opposite implant was positioned with 30 degrees of distal angulation. The lateral incisor implants were placed 2 or 4 mm subgingivally. Two experienced and two inexperienced operators performed intraoral scanning. Five different interimplant distances were then measured. The files obtained from the scans were imported with reverse-engineering software. Measurements were then made with a coordinate measurement machine, with values from the master model used as reference values. The deviations from the actual values were then calculated. The differences between experienced and inexperienced operators and the effects of different implant angulations and depths were compared statistically. RESULTS: Overall, operator 3 obtained significantly less accurate results. The angulated implants did not significantly influence accuracy compared to the parallel implants. Differences were found in the amount of error in the different quadrants. The second scanned quadrant had significantly worse results than the first scanned quadrant. Impressions of the implants placed at the tissue level were less accurate than implants placed 2 and 4 mm subgingivally. CONCLUSIONS: The operator affected the accuracy of measurements, but the performance of the operator was not necessarily dependent on experience. Angulated implants did not decrease the accuracy of the digital impression system tested. The scanned distance affected the predictability of the accuracy of the scanner, and the error increased with the increased length of the scanned section.
Authors: Saoirse O'Toole; David Bartlett; Andrew Keeling; John McBride; Eduardo Bernabe; Luuk Crins; Bas Loomans Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 5.428