Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz1, Katharina Klaus2, Alexander Schmidt3, Bernd Wöstmann3, Marco Mersmann2, Sabine Ruf2, Niko Christian Bock2. 1. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic of the Justus Liebig University Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany. maximiliane.a.schlenz@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Dental Clinic of the Justus Liebig University Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany. 3. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Clinic of the Justus Liebig University Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of fixed orthodontic appliances (FOAs) on the transfer accuracy of full-arch impressions by five intraoral scanners (IOSs): CS3600, Primescan, Trios 4, Medit i500, Emerald S, and one conventional alginate impression (CAI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To compare the data with the actual model situation, an established reference aid-based method was applied. A test model with human teeth was used and modified for each testing group, resulting in five different settings: natural teeth (group A), metal brackets without/with wire (groups B/C), ceramic brackets without/with wire (groups D/E). A total of 300 (n = 12 × 5 × 5) scan datasets of IOSs were analyzed using a 3D software (GOM Inspect) and 60 (n = 12 × 5) plaster casts of CAI were measured with a coordinate measurement machine. The deviations between the reference aid and the impressions were determined. RESULTS: For all groups with brackets (B to E), IOSs showed a higher transfer accuracy compared to CAI, even for long-span distances. However, some significant differences between the IOSs were observed (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, IOSs can be recommended for impressions with and without FOAs, even if CAI showed the smallest average deviations in settings without FOAs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IOSs are widely used in orthodontics and the current study demonstrated that their use enables fast impression taking even in settings with fixed orthodontic appliances. In addition, for these settings, the transfer accuracy is higher than with conventional alginate impressions. Nevertheless, a re-investigation in a clinical setting should be performed to verify the current in vitro findings.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the influence of fixed orthodontic appliances (FOAs) on the transfer accuracy of full-arch impressions by five intraoral scanners (IOSs): CS3600, Primescan, Trios 4, Medit i500, Emerald S, and one conventional alginate impression (CAI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: To compare the data with the actual model situation, an established reference aid-based method was applied. A test model with human teeth was used and modified for each testing group, resulting in five different settings: natural teeth (group A), metal brackets without/with wire (groups B/C), ceramic brackets without/with wire (groups D/E). A total of 300 (n = 12 × 5 × 5) scan datasets of IOSs were analyzed using a 3D software (GOM Inspect) and 60 (n = 12 × 5) plaster casts of CAI were measured with a coordinate measurement machine. The deviations between the reference aid and the impressions were determined. RESULTS: For all groups with brackets (B to E), IOSs showed a higher transfer accuracy compared to CAI, even for long-span distances. However, some significant differences between the IOSs were observed (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, IOSs can be recommended for impressions with and without FOAs, even if CAI showed the smallest average deviations in settings without FOAs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: IOSs are widely used in orthodontics and the current study demonstrated that their use enables fast impression taking even in settings with fixed orthodontic appliances. In addition, for these settings, the transfer accuracy is higher than with conventional alginate impressions. Nevertheless, a re-investigation in a clinical setting should be performed to verify the current in vitro findings.
Authors: Mônica L C Aragón; Luana F Pontes; Lívia M Bichara; Carlos Flores-Mir; David Normando Journal: Eur J Orthod Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Jennifer A Burzynski; Allen R Firestone; F Michael Beck; Henry W Fields; Toru Deguchi Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Nghe S Luu; Liliya G Nikolcheva; Jean-Marc Retrouvey; Carlos Flores-Mir; Tarek El-Bialy; Jason P Carey; Paul W Major Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 2.079