Evaluation of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners in Endocrown Restorations.

Mojdeh Meisami-Azad, Mohammad Alihemmati, Sayed Shojaedin Shayegh, Mohammad Amin Bafandeh
{"title":"Evaluation of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners in Endocrown Restorations.","authors":"Mojdeh Meisami-Azad, Mohammad Alihemmati, Sayed Shojaedin Shayegh, Mohammad Amin Bafandeh","doi":"10.11607/ijp.9223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>This in vitro study aimed to assess the trueness and precision of various intraoral scanners (IOSs) in relation to endocrown restorations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>One human mandibular molar was mounted within an acrylic resin block. The tooth was prepared for an endocrown restoration, involving a 2-millimeter cusp reduction, a 3.5-millimeter pulp chamber depth, and a butt joint margin. The sample was scanned by three different IOSs (3Shape TRIOS 4, Carestream 3800, and Medit i700), with 10 scans taken by each, and then converted into STL files. A high-precision scanner captured a reference scan, which was also converted into an STL file. Trueness was assessed by superimposing each sample scan onto the reference, while precision was determined by superimposing the STL files within each group. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc test and the Mann Whitney U Test (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study found that TRIOS 4 exhibited the highest trueness. (22.44 ± 15.01 μm), followed by Medit i700 (24.59 ± 12.80 μm) and CS 3800 (29.05 ± 7.75 μm). In terms of precision, CS 3800 had the best results (21.55 ± 8.87 μm), followed by Medit i700 (43.80 ± 17.42 μm) and TRIOS 4 (47.28 ± 13.93 μm). Only the differences between the precision of the CS 3800 and the other two scanners were statistically significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The study found that all three scanners had similar trueness, but CS 3800 had significantly better precision than the other two scanners. However, all of the scanners demonstrated acceptable levels of accuracy in the context of endocrown preparation.</p>","PeriodicalId":94232,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of prosthodontics","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","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.9223","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

Aims: This in vitro study aimed to assess the trueness and precision of various intraoral scanners (IOSs) in relation to endocrown restorations.

Methods: One human mandibular molar was mounted within an acrylic resin block. The tooth was prepared for an endocrown restoration, involving a 2-millimeter cusp reduction, a 3.5-millimeter pulp chamber depth, and a butt joint margin. The sample was scanned by three different IOSs (3Shape TRIOS 4, Carestream 3800, and Medit i700), with 10 scans taken by each, and then converted into STL files. A high-precision scanner captured a reference scan, which was also converted into an STL file. Trueness was assessed by superimposing each sample scan onto the reference, while precision was determined by superimposing the STL files within each group. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey HSD post hoc test and the Mann Whitney U Test (α = 0.05).

Results: The study found that TRIOS 4 exhibited the highest trueness. (22.44 ± 15.01 μm), followed by Medit i700 (24.59 ± 12.80 μm) and CS 3800 (29.05 ± 7.75 μm). In terms of precision, CS 3800 had the best results (21.55 ± 8.87 μm), followed by Medit i700 (43.80 ± 17.42 μm) and TRIOS 4 (47.28 ± 13.93 μm). Only the differences between the precision of the CS 3800 and the other two scanners were statistically significant.

Conclusions: The study found that all three scanners had similar trueness, but CS 3800 had significantly better precision than the other two scanners. However, all of the scanners demonstrated acceptable levels of accuracy in the context of endocrown preparation.

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
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
Accuracy of Intraoral Scanning Versus Analog Impression for Multiple Implant-supported Prostheses in Long Edentulous Spans: A Comparative Clinical Study. Effect of Number and Angulation of Implants on Accuracy of Digital Impression in Completely Edentulous Arch. Evaluation of the Accuracy of Different Intraoral Scanners in Endocrown Restorations. The Effect of Build Angle on the Mechanical Properties of 3D- Printed Custom Tray Resin Specimens. Maxillary All-on-6 Treatment Using Zygomatic Implants. Bone Loss Evaluation by CBCT: 3-Year Follow-up.
×
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