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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baghani, Mohammad Taghi, Neshati, Ammar, Sadafi, Mehdi, Shidfar, Shireen
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