Literature DB >> 33510317

Trueness of ten intraoral scanners in determining the positions of simulated implant scan bodies.

Ryan Jin Young Kim1, Goran I Benic2, Ji-Man Park3.   

Abstract

Few investigations have evaluated the 3-dimensional (3D) accuracy of digital implant scans. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of 10 intraoral scanners (IOSs) (CEREC Omnicam, CEREC Primescan, CS 3600, DWIO, i500, iTero Element, PlanScan, Trios 2, Trios 3, and True Definition) in obtaining the accurate positions of 6 cylinders simulating implant scan bodies. Digital scans of each IOS were compared with the reference dataset obtained by means of a coordinate measuring machine. Deviation from the actual positions of the 6 cylinders along the XYZ axes and the overall 3D deviation of the digital scan were calculated. The type of IOSs and position of simulated cylindrical scan bodies affected the magnitude and direction of deviations on trueness. The lowest amount of deviation was found at the cylinder next to the reference origin, while the highest deviation was evident at the contralateral side for all IOSs (p < 0.001). Among the tested IOSs, the CEREC Primescan and Trios 3 had the highest trueness followed by i500, Trios 2, and iTero Element, albeit not statistically significant (p > 0.05), and the DWIO and PlasScan had the lowest trueness in partially edentulous mandible digital implant scans (p < 0.001).

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33510317     DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82218-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


  27 in total

1.  In vitro measurements of precision of fit of implant-supported frameworks. A comparison between "virtual" and "physical" assessments of fit using two different techniques of measurements.

Authors:  Torsten Jemt; Lars Hjalmarsson
Journal:  Clin Implant Dent Relat Res       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 3.932

2.  Accuracy of 9 intraoral scanners for complete-arch image acquisition: A qualitative and quantitative evaluation.

Authors:  Ryan Jin-Young Kim; Ji-Man Park; June-Sung Shim
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 3.426

Review 3.  Accuracy of digital implant impressions with intraoral scanners. A systematic review.

Authors:  Vygandas Rutkūnas; Agnė Gečiauskaitė; Darius Jegelevičius; Mantas Vaitiekūnas
Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 3.123

Review 4.  Misfit of implant prostheses and its impact on clinical outcomes. Definition, assessment and a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Joannis Katsoulis; Takuro Takeichi; Ana Sol Gaviria; Lukas Peter; Konstantinos Katsoulis
Journal:  Eur J Oral Implantol       Date:  2017       Impact factor: 3.123

5.  Digital versus conventional implant impressions for partially edentulous arches: An evaluation of accuracy.

Authors:  Amin Marghalani; Hans-Peter Weber; Matthew Finkelman; Yukio Kudara; Khaled El Rafie; Panos Papaspyridakos
Journal:  J Prosthet Dent       Date:  2017-09-18       Impact factor: 3.426

6.  Intraoral Digital Impression Technique Compared to Conventional Impression Technique. A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Björn Gjelvold; Bruno Ramos Chrcanovic; Eva-Karin Korduner; Ingrid Collin-Bagewitz; Jenö Kisch
Journal:  J Prosthodont       Date:  2015-11-30       Impact factor: 2.752

7.  Accuracy of digital versus conventional implant impressions.

Authors:  Sang J Lee; Rebecca A Betensky; Grace E Gianneschi; German O Gallucci
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 5.977

8.  Patients' preferences when comparing analogue implant impressions using a polyether impression material versus digital impressions (Intraoral Scan) of dental implants.

Authors:  Daniel Wismeijer; Ronny Mans; Michiel van Genuchten; Hajo A Reijers
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 9.  Intraoral scanners in dentistry: a review of the current literature.

Authors:  Francesco Mangano; Andrea Gandolfi; Giuseppe Luongo; Silvia Logozzo
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 2.757

10.  Trueness of digital intraoral impression in reproducing multiple implant position.

Authors:  Ryan Jin-Young Kim; Goran I Benic; Ji-Man Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  3 in total

1.  Analysis of the relationship between the surface topography of prepared tooth surfaces and data quality of digital impressions from an intraoral scanner.

Authors:  Neset Volkan Asar; Sarah Yun; Shelby Schwartz; Ilser Turkyilmaz
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2021-07-31       Impact factor: 2.080

2.  Trueness of digital implant impressions based on implant angulation and scan body materials.

Authors:  Jae-Hyun Lee; Jae-Hwi Bae; Su Young Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Accuracy of full-arch digitalization for partially edentulous jaws - a laboratory study on basis of coordinate-based data analysis.

Authors:  Panagiotis Kontis; Jan-Frederik Güth; Christine Keul
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-01-04       Impact factor: 3.573

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.