Griffin Revell1, Botond Simon2, Anthony Mennito3, Zachary P Evans4, Walter Renne5, Mark Ludlow3, János Vág6. 1. Dental student, Department of Oral Rehabilitation and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 2. PhD student, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 4. Assistant Professor, College of Dental Medicine, Department of Oral Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 5. Full Professor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation and Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 6. Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: drvagjanos@gmail.com.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. PURPOSE: The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05). RESULTS: After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm versus 54 ±3.1 μm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 μm versus 57 ±3.6 μm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 μm), i500 (57 ±3.6 μm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 μm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 μm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 μm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 μm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 μm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 μm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 μm, P=.141) for the experienced operators. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies. PURPOSE: The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05). RESULTS: After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm versus 54 ±3.1 μm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 μm versus 57 ±3.6 μm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 μm), i500 (57 ±3.6 μm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 μm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 μm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 μm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 μm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 μm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 μm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 μm, P=.141) for the experienced operators. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.
Authors: Parichehr Zarean; Paridokht Zarean; Florian M Thieringer; Andreas A Mueller; Sabine Kressmann; Martin Erismann; Neha Sharma; Benito K Benitez Journal: Children (Basel) Date: 2022-08-20