Adolfo Di Fiore1, Roberto Meneghello2, Lorenzo Graiff3, Gianpaolo Savio4, Paolo Vigolo3, Carlo Monaco5, Edoardo Stellini6. 1. Department of Neuroscience, Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. Electronic address: adolfo.difiore@unipd.it. 2. Departments of Management and Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 3. Department of Neuroscience, Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 4. Departments of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 5. Division of Prosthodontics and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum-University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 6. Dental School, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Compare the accuracy of intraoral digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis acquired with eight different intraoral scanner (Ios). METHODS: A polymethyl methacrylate acrylic model of an edentulous mandible with six scan-abutment was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Eight different Ios were used to generate digital impression: True Definition, Trios, Cerec Omnicam, 3D progress, CS3500, CS3600, Planmeca Emelard and Dental Wings. Fifteen digital impressions were made. A software called "Scan-abut" was developed to analyse and compare the digital impression with the master model, obtaining the scanning accuracy. The three-dimensional (3D) position and distance analysis were performed. RESULTS: Mean value of the 3D position analysis showed that the True Definition (31 μm ± 8 μm) and Trios (32 μm ± 5 μm) have the best performance of the group. The Cerec Omnicam (71 μm ± 55 μm), CS3600 (61 μm ± 14 μm) have an average performance. The CS3500 (107 μm ± 28 μm) and Planmeca Emelard (101 μm ± 38 μm) present a middle-low performance, while the 3D progress (344 μm ± 121 μm) and Dental Wings (148 μm ± 64 μm) show the low performance. The 3D distance analysis showed a good linear relationship between the errors and scan-abutment distance only with the True Definition and CS3600. CONCLUSIONS: Not all scanners are suitable for digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and the weight of the output files is independent from the accuracy of the Ios.
PURPOSE: Compare the accuracy of intraoral digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis acquired with eight different intraoral scanner (Ios). METHODS: A polymethyl methacrylate acrylic model of an edentulous mandible with six scan-abutment was used as a master model and its dimensions measured with a coordinate measuring machine. Eight different Ios were used to generate digital impression: True Definition, Trios, Cerec Omnicam, 3D progress, CS3500, CS3600, Planmeca Emelard and Dental Wings. Fifteen digital impressions were made. A software called "Scan-abut" was developed to analyse and compare the digital impression with the master model, obtaining the scanning accuracy. The three-dimensional (3D) position and distance analysis were performed. RESULTS: Mean value of the 3D position analysis showed that the True Definition (31 μm ± 8 μm) and Trios (32 μm ± 5 μm) have the best performance of the group. The Cerec Omnicam (71 μm ± 55 μm), CS3600 (61 μm ± 14 μm) have an average performance. The CS3500 (107 μm ± 28 μm) and Planmeca Emelard (101 μm ± 38 μm) present a middle-low performance, while the 3D progress (344 μm ± 121 μm) and Dental Wings (148 μm ± 64 μm) show the low performance. The 3D distance analysis showed a good linear relationship between the errors and scan-abutment distance only with the True Definition and CS3600. CONCLUSIONS: Not all scanners are suitable for digital impression in full-arch implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis and the weight of the output files is independent from the accuracy of the Ios.