Update on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions in 2023: A Coordinate-Based Analysis.

Alexander Schmidt, Cara Berschin, Bernd Wöstmann, Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz
{"title":"Update on the Accuracy of Digital Implant Impressions in 2023: A Coordinate-Based Analysis.","authors":"Alexander Schmidt, Cara Berschin, Bernd Wöstmann, Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz","doi":"10.11607/ijp.8843","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To update data on the transfer accuracy of digital implant impressions by using a coordinate-based analysis, latest intraoral scanners (IOSs) were investigated in an established clinical close model set-up.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>An implant master model (IMM) of the maxilla with four implants in the posterior area (#14/#24 and #16/#26) and a reference cube was scanned with four different IOS (i700 (Medit), Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 and Trios 5 (3Shape) ten times each. Datasets were compared with a reference dataset of IMM that was generated with x-ray computed tomography in advance. 3D deviations for the implant-abutment-interface points (IAIPs) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed by multifactorial ANOVA (p < .05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall deviations for trueness (mean) ± precision (SD) of the IAIPs ranged from 88±47 μm for the Primescan, followed by 112±57 μm for the i700, 121±42 μm for the Trios 4 and 124±43 μm for the Trios 5 with decreasing accuracy along the scan path. For trueness, one significant difference between the Primescan and the T4 was detected for one implant position. For precision, no significant differences were noticed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the latest IOS showed a significant improvement in transfer accuracy, the accumulating deviation along the scan path is not yet resolved. Considering the Trios system, the innovation seems to be limited as no improvement could be detected between Trios 4 and 5.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of prosthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/ijp.8843","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To update data on the transfer accuracy of digital implant impressions by using a coordinate-based analysis, latest intraoral scanners (IOSs) were investigated in an established clinical close model set-up.

Materials and methods: An implant master model (IMM) of the maxilla with four implants in the posterior area (#14/#24 and #16/#26) and a reference cube was scanned with four different IOS (i700 (Medit), Primescan (Dentsply Sirona), Trios 4 and Trios 5 (3Shape) ten times each. Datasets were compared with a reference dataset of IMM that was generated with x-ray computed tomography in advance. 3D deviations for the implant-abutment-interface points (IAIPs) were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed by multifactorial ANOVA (p < .05).

Results: Overall deviations for trueness (mean) ± precision (SD) of the IAIPs ranged from 88±47 μm for the Primescan, followed by 112±57 μm for the i700, 121±42 μm for the Trios 4 and 124±43 μm for the Trios 5 with decreasing accuracy along the scan path. For trueness, one significant difference between the Primescan and the T4 was detected for one implant position. For precision, no significant differences were noticed.

Conclusions: Although the latest IOS showed a significant improvement in transfer accuracy, the accumulating deviation along the scan path is not yet resolved. Considering the Trios system, the innovation seems to be limited as no improvement could be detected between Trios 4 and 5.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2023 年数字化种植体印模准确性的最新进展:基于坐标的分析
目的:通过使用基于坐标的分析方法,对最新的口内扫描仪(IOS)在已建立的临床紧密模型设置中的转移准确性进行研究,以更新有关数字种植体印模转移准确性的数据:使用四种不同的口内扫描仪(i700 (Medit)、Primescan (Dentsply Sirona)、Trios 4 和 Trios 5 (3Shape))对上颌骨的一个种植体主模型(IMM)(后区有四个种植体(#14/#24 和 #16/#26))和一个参考立方体各扫描十次。数据集与事先用 X 射线计算机断层扫描生成的 IMM 参考数据集进行了比较。计算了种植体-基台-界面点(IAIP)的三维偏差。统计分析采用多因素方差分析(P < .05):结果:IAIPs的真实度(平均值)±精确度(标清值)的总体偏差范围为:Primescan为88±47 μm,i700为112±57 μm,Trios 4为121±42 μm,Trios 5为124±43 μm。在真实度方面,Primescan 和 T4 在一个种植体位置上有明显差异。结论:结论:尽管最新的 IOS 系统在转移精度方面有了明显改善,但扫描路径上的累积偏差问题仍未得到解决。就 Trios 系统而言,创新似乎有限,因为 Trios 4 和 Trios 5 之间没有发现任何改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
IN VITRO SURVIVAL AND FRACTURE FORCE OF LITHIUM DISILICATE HYBRID ABUTMENT CROWNS. Influence of Implant ScanBody Material and Intraoral Scanners on the Accuracy of Complete-Arch Digital Implant Impressions. A Cross-Sectional Study of Temporomandibular Disorders Among Postgraduate Students. Translucency Parameters and Masking Abilities of Monolithic CAD/CAM Ceramics. A Comparison of Occlusal Schemes with Condylar Inclination and Anterior Guidance in Dentate Individuals.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1