Berkman Albayrak1, Cortino Sukotjo2, Alvin G Wee3, İsmail Hakkı Korkmaz4, Funda Bayındır5. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Bahçeşehir University School of Dental Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry, Chicago, IL. 3. Division of Prosthodontics, Department of Restorative Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, Minneapolis, MN. 4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Erzurum Technical University Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Erzurum, Turkey. 5. Department of Prosthodontics, Atatürk University Faculty of Dentistry, Erzurum, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The accuracy of digital impressions is still controversial for complete arch implant cases. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of different intraoral scanners with the conventional technique in terms of trueness and precision in a complete arch implant model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight implants were inserted asymmetrically in a polyurethane edentulous mandibular model with different angulations. A 3-dimensional (3D) reference model was obtained by scanning this polyurethane model with an optical scanner. First, digital impressions were made by using 3 different intraoral scanners: Carestream 3500 (DC), Cerec Omnicam (DO) and 3Shape Trios 3 (DT). Subsequently, a nonsplinted open tray impression technique was used for conventional impression group (C) and then the master casts were digitalized with a lab scanner. Each 10 STL files belonging to 4 different impression groups were imported to a reverse engineering program, to measure distance and angle deviations from the reference model. All statistical analyses were performed after taking absolute values of the data. After comparing the impression groups with one-way ANOVA, the trueness and precision values were analyzed by Tukey post hoc test and 0.05 was used as the level of significance. RESULTS: The mean trueness of distance was 123.06 ± 89.83 µm for DC, 229.72 ± 121.34 µm for DO, 209.75 ± 47.07 µm for DT, and 345.32 ± 75.12 µm for C group (p < 0.0001). While DC showed significantly lower deviation compared to DO and C, no significant difference was found between DC and DT. C showed the highest distance deviation significantly in all groups; and no significant difference was found between DO and DT groups. In angle measurements; the trueness was 0.26° ± 0.07° for DC, 0.53° ± 0.42° for DO, 0.33° ± 0.30° for DT, and 0.74° ± 0.65° for C group. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of angular trueness (p = 0.074). In terms of the precision for distance, the results of DC 80.43 ± 29.69 µm, DO 94.06 ± 69.96 µm, DT 35.55 ± 28.46 µm and C 66.97 ± 36.69 µm were determined (p = 0.036). The significant difference was found only between DT and DO among all groups. Finally, angular precision was determined to be 0.19° ± 0.11° for DC, 0.30° ± 0.28° for DO, 0.22° ± 0.19° for DT, and 0.50° ± 0.38° for Group C. No significant difference was found between the groups, in terms of angular precision (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: All digital impression groups yielded superior data compared to conventional technique in terms of trueness. DC formed the impression group with the highest trueness in both distance and angular measurements. The results of this in vitro study suggest the use of intraoral scanners compared to the conventional impression techniques in complete arch implant cases with high angulations.
PURPOSE: The accuracy of digital impressions is still controversial for complete arch implant cases. The aim of this study is to compare the accuracy of different intraoral scanners with the conventional technique in terms of trueness and precision in a complete arch implant model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight implants were inserted asymmetrically in a polyurethane edentulous mandibular model with different angulations. A 3-dimensional (3D) reference model was obtained by scanning this polyurethane model with an optical scanner. First, digital impressions were made by using 3 different intraoral scanners: Carestream 3500 (DC), Cerec Omnicam (DO) and 3Shape Trios 3 (DT). Subsequently, a nonsplinted open tray impression technique was used for conventional impression group (C) and then the master casts were digitalized with a lab scanner. Each 10 STL files belonging to 4 different impression groups were imported to a reverse engineering program, to measure distance and angle deviations from the reference model. All statistical analyses were performed after taking absolute values of the data. After comparing the impression groups with one-way ANOVA, the trueness and precision values were analyzed by Tukey post hoc test and 0.05 was used as the level of significance. RESULTS: The mean trueness of distance was 123.06 ± 89.83 µm for DC, 229.72 ± 121.34 µm for DO, 209.75 ± 47.07 µm for DT, and 345.32 ± 75.12 µm for C group (p < 0.0001). While DC showed significantly lower deviation compared to DO and C, no significant difference was found between DC and DT. C showed the highest distance deviation significantly in all groups; and no significant difference was found between DO and DT groups. In angle measurements; the trueness was 0.26° ± 0.07° for DC, 0.53° ± 0.42° for DO, 0.33° ± 0.30° for DT, and 0.74° ± 0.65° for C group. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of angular trueness (p = 0.074). In terms of the precision for distance, the results of DC 80.43 ± 29.69 µm, DO 94.06 ± 69.96 µm, DT 35.55 ± 28.46 µm and C 66.97 ± 36.69 µm were determined (p = 0.036). The significant difference was found only between DT and DO among all groups. Finally, angular precision was determined to be 0.19° ± 0.11° for DC, 0.30° ± 0.28° for DO, 0.22° ± 0.19° for DT, and 0.50° ± 0.38° for Group C. No significant difference was found between the groups, in terms of angular precision (p = 0.053). CONCLUSIONS: All digital impression groups yielded superior data compared to conventional technique in terms of trueness. DC formed the impression group with the highest trueness in both distance and angular measurements. The results of this in vitro study suggest the use of intraoral scanners compared to the conventional impression techniques in complete arch implant cases with high angulations.
Authors: María Isabel Albanchez-González; Jorge Cortés-Bretón Brinkmann; Jesús Peláez-Rico; Carlos López-Suárez; Verónica Rodríguez-Alonso; María Jesús Suárez-García Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Jaime Orejas-Perez; Beatriz Gimenez-Gonzalez; Ignacio Ortiz-Collado; Israel J Thuissard; Andrea Santamaria-Laorden Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-03 Impact factor: 3.390