Cargando…
Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of digital impression making based on trueness and precision measurements of dental implants placed in maxillofacial lesions to produce Maxillofacial prosthesis substructures. METHODS: Two intra-oral scanners (Trios 3 and CS 3700) and one Desktop...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37122657 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1324_22 |
_version_ | 1785031296452395008 |
---|---|
author | Baghani, Mohammad Taghi Neshati, Ammar Sadafi, Mehdi Shidfar, Shireen |
author_facet | Baghani, Mohammad Taghi Neshati, Ammar Sadafi, Mehdi Shidfar, Shireen |
author_sort | Baghani, Mohammad Taghi |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of digital impression making based on trueness and precision measurements of dental implants placed in maxillofacial lesions to produce Maxillofacial prosthesis substructures. METHODS: Two intra-oral scanners (Trios 3 and CS 3700) and one Desktop scanner (open technology) were examined in this study. A Model of a patient with a lesion in the ear region was created as a reference. The reference model was scanned by each scanner 10 times. Standard Tessellation Language files were provided from each scanner and were examined in terms of Trueness and Precision aspects. RESULTS: In Distance 1, in the one-way analysis of variance test, there was a significant difference between the three scanners. The Trios group has less deviation than the Open Technology group (P = 0.015) compared with the CareStream (CS) group that showed more deviation (P < 0.000). There is a statistically significant difference in distance 2 among scanners. The Trios group showed more deviation as compared with the Open Technology group (P < 0.000). While this deviation is not statistically significant compared with the CS group (P = 0.0907). Open Technology Group compared with the CS group also has less deviation in distance 2, which has been statistically significant (P < 0.000). The preparation of a precise model of maxillofacial lesions is still difficult for some Intraoral scanners. CONCLUSION: There were significant statistical differences in Trueness and Precision among scanners. Used scanners can be applied as an alternative to conventional impression methods. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10131967 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-101319672023-04-27 Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis Baghani, Mohammad Taghi Neshati, Ammar Sadafi, Mehdi Shidfar, Shireen J Family Med Prim Care Original Article OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of digital impression making based on trueness and precision measurements of dental implants placed in maxillofacial lesions to produce Maxillofacial prosthesis substructures. METHODS: Two intra-oral scanners (Trios 3 and CS 3700) and one Desktop scanner (open technology) were examined in this study. A Model of a patient with a lesion in the ear region was created as a reference. The reference model was scanned by each scanner 10 times. Standard Tessellation Language files were provided from each scanner and were examined in terms of Trueness and Precision aspects. RESULTS: In Distance 1, in the one-way analysis of variance test, there was a significant difference between the three scanners. The Trios group has less deviation than the Open Technology group (P = 0.015) compared with the CareStream (CS) group that showed more deviation (P < 0.000). There is a statistically significant difference in distance 2 among scanners. The Trios group showed more deviation as compared with the Open Technology group (P < 0.000). While this deviation is not statistically significant compared with the CS group (P = 0.0907). Open Technology Group compared with the CS group also has less deviation in distance 2, which has been statistically significant (P < 0.000). The preparation of a precise model of maxillofacial lesions is still difficult for some Intraoral scanners. CONCLUSION: There were significant statistical differences in Trueness and Precision among scanners. Used scanners can be applied as an alternative to conventional impression methods. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2023-03 2023-03-17 /pmc/articles/PMC10131967/ /pubmed/37122657 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1324_22 Text en Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Baghani, Mohammad Taghi Neshati, Ammar Sadafi, Mehdi Shidfar, Shireen Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis |
title | Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis |
title_full | Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis |
title_short | Evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis |
title_sort | evaluation of the accuracy of digital and conventional implant-level impression techniques for maxillofacial prosthesis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131967/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37122657 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1324_22 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT baghanimohammadtaghi evaluationoftheaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimplantlevelimpressiontechniquesformaxillofacialprosthesis AT neshatiammar evaluationoftheaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimplantlevelimpressiontechniquesformaxillofacialprosthesis AT sadafimehdi evaluationoftheaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimplantlevelimpressiontechniquesformaxillofacialprosthesis AT shidfarshireen evaluationoftheaccuracyofdigitalandconventionalimplantlevelimpressiontechniquesformaxillofacialprosthesis |