Mustafa Borga Dönmez , Gülce Çakmak , Martin Schimmel , Morse Bayadse , Burak Yilmaz , Samir Abou-Ayash
{"title":"Scan accuracy of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners in different fixed partial denture situations","authors":"Mustafa Borga Dönmez , Gülce Çakmak , Martin Schimmel , Morse Bayadse , Burak Yilmaz , Samir Abou-Ayash","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare the in vitro scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners (IOSs) to commonly used wired IOSs in different fixed partial denture (FPD) situations.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Three partially edentulous maxillary models with implants located at different sites (lateral incisors [Model 1]; right canine and first molar [Model 2]; right first premolar and first molar [Model 3]) were digitized with wireless (Primescan 2 [P2] and TRIOS 5 [T5]) and wired (Primescan [P1] and TRIOS 3 [T3]) IOSs (<em>n</em> = 14 per IOS-model pair). The models were also digitized with an industrial-grade optical scanner for their reference scans. The IOS scans were superimposed over the reference scans to evaluate the 3D distance, angular, and 2D interimplant distance deviations (trueness). The variance of measured deviations was defined as the precision and all data were analyzed with bootstrap analysis of variance and Holm-corrected Welch tests (α = 0.05).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The IOS, FPD situation, and their interaction affected the scan accuracy (<em>P</em> < 0.001). P2 scans mostly had the highest and the scans of Model 2 mostly had the lowest 3D distance accuracy (<em>P</em> ≤ 0.030). P1 scans had the highest angular accuracy within each model, followed by the P2 scans in Models 1 and 2 (<em>P</em> ≤ 0.002). P1 scans mostly had higher 2D interimplant distance accuracy (<em>P</em> ≤ 0.047).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Digital impressions of tested FPD situations had high accuracy mostly with P1 and P2. The scans for a posterior 4-unit FPD might have higher inaccuracies, regardless of the tested IOSs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"153 ","pages":"Article 105558"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225000041","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective
To compare the in vitro scan accuracy (trueness and precision) of recently introduced wireless intraoral scanners (IOSs) to commonly used wired IOSs in different fixed partial denture (FPD) situations.
Methods
Three partially edentulous maxillary models with implants located at different sites (lateral incisors [Model 1]; right canine and first molar [Model 2]; right first premolar and first molar [Model 3]) were digitized with wireless (Primescan 2 [P2] and TRIOS 5 [T5]) and wired (Primescan [P1] and TRIOS 3 [T3]) IOSs (n = 14 per IOS-model pair). The models were also digitized with an industrial-grade optical scanner for their reference scans. The IOS scans were superimposed over the reference scans to evaluate the 3D distance, angular, and 2D interimplant distance deviations (trueness). The variance of measured deviations was defined as the precision and all data were analyzed with bootstrap analysis of variance and Holm-corrected Welch tests (α = 0.05).
Results
The IOS, FPD situation, and their interaction affected the scan accuracy (P < 0.001). P2 scans mostly had the highest and the scans of Model 2 mostly had the lowest 3D distance accuracy (P ≤ 0.030). P1 scans had the highest angular accuracy within each model, followed by the P2 scans in Models 1 and 2 (P ≤ 0.002). P1 scans mostly had higher 2D interimplant distance accuracy (P ≤ 0.047).
Conclusions
Digital impressions of tested FPD situations had high accuracy mostly with P1 and P2. The scans for a posterior 4-unit FPD might have higher inaccuracies, regardless of the tested IOSs.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review.
The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis.
Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research.
The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.