Scan accuracy and time efficiency of different implant-supported fixed partial denture situations depending on the intraoral scanner and scanned area: An in vitro study
Küçük Resim Yok
Tarih
2023
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
Elsevier Inc.
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Statement of problem: The type of intraoral scanner (IOS), region of the implant, and extent of the scanned area have been reported to affect scan accuracy. However, knowledge of the accuracy of IOSs is scarce when digitizing different partially edentulous situations either with complete- or partial-arch scans. Purpose: The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the scan accuracy and time efficiency of complete- and partial-arch scans of different partially edentulous situations with 2 implants and 2 different IOSs. Material and methods: Three maxillary models with implant spaces at the lateral incisor sites (anterior 4-unit), right first premolar and right first molar sites (posterior 3-unit), or right canine and right first molar sites (posterior 4-unit) were fabricated. After placing implants (Straumann S RN) and scan bodies (CARES Mono Scanbody), models were digitized by using an optical scanner (ATOS Capsule 200MV120) to generate reference standard tessellation language (STL) files. Complete- or partial-arch scans (test scans) of each model were then performed by using 2 IOSs (Primescan [PS] and TRIOS 3 [T3]) (n=14). The duration of the scans and the time needed to postprocess the STL file until the design could be started were also recorded. A metrology-grade analysis software program (GOM Inspect 2018) was used to superimpose test scan STLs over the reference STL to calculate 3D distance, interimplant distance, and angular (mesiodistal and buccopalatal) deviations. Nonparametric 2-way analysis of variance followed by Mann-Whitney tests with Holm correction were used for trueness, precision, and time efficiency analyses (?=.05). Results: The interaction between IOSs and scanned area only affected the precision of the scans when angular deviation data were considered (P?.002). Trueness of the scans was affected by IOSs when 3D distance, interimplant distance, and mesiodistal angular deviations were considered. The scanned area affected only 3D distance deviations (P?.006). IOSs and scanned area significantly affected the precision of scans when 3D distance, interimplant distance, and mesiodistal angular deviations were considered, while only IOSs significantly affected buccopalatal angular deviations (P?.040). Scans from PS had higher accuracy when 3D distance deviations were considered for the anterior 4-unit and posterior 3-unit models (P?.030), when interimplant distance deviations were considered for complete-arch scans of the posterior 3-unit model (P?.048), and when mesiodistal angular deviations were considered in the posterior 3-unit model (P?.050). Partial-arch scans had higher accuracy when 3D distance deviations of the posterior 3-unit model were considered (P?.002). PS had higher time efficiency regardless of the model and scanned area (P?.010), while partial-arch scans had higher time efficiency when scanning the posterior 3-unit and posterior 4-unit models with PS and the posterior 3-unit model with T3 (P?.050). Conclusions: Partial-arch scans with PS had similar or better accuracy and time efficiency than other tested scanned area-scanner pairs in tested partial edentulism situations. © 2023 Editorial Council for the Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Kaynak
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Q1
