Cargando…

Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners used in oral implantology. METHODS: Two stone models were prepared, representing a partially and a totally edentulous maxilla, with three and six implant analogues, respectively, and polyether-ether-k...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mangano, Francesco G., Veronesi, Giovanni, Hauschild, Uli, Mijiritsky, Eitan, Mangano, Carlo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5042463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27684723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163107
_version_ 1782456594651414528
author Mangano, Francesco G.
Veronesi, Giovanni
Hauschild, Uli
Mijiritsky, Eitan
Mangano, Carlo
author_facet Mangano, Francesco G.
Veronesi, Giovanni
Hauschild, Uli
Mijiritsky, Eitan
Mangano, Carlo
author_sort Mangano, Francesco G.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners used in oral implantology. METHODS: Two stone models were prepared, representing a partially and a totally edentulous maxilla, with three and six implant analogues, respectively, and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cylinders screwed on. The models were digitized with an industrial scanner (IScan D104I®) used as a reference, and with four intraoral scanners (Trios®; CS 3500®; Zfx Intrascan®; Planscan®). Five scans were taken for each model, using each different intraoral scanner. All datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software (Geomagics 2012®), where intraoral scans were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate general trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to evaluate general precision. General trueness and precision of any scanner were compared by model type, through an ANOVA model including scanner, model and their interaction. Finally, the distance and angles between simulated implants were measured in each group, and compared to those of the reference model, to evaluate local trueness. RESULTS: In the partially edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best general trueness (47.8 μm) and precision (40.8 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.2 μm, precision 51.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 117.0 μm, precision 126.2 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 233.4 μm, precision 219.8 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. In the totally edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best performance in terms of general trueness (63.2 μm) and precision (55.2 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.6 μm, precision 67.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 103.0 μm, precision 112.4 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 253.4 μm, precision 204.2 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. Local trueness values confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Although no differences in trueness and precision were found between partially and totally edentulous models, statistically significant differences were found between the different scanners. Further studies are required to confirm these results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5042463
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50424632016-10-27 Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study Mangano, Francesco G. Veronesi, Giovanni Hauschild, Uli Mijiritsky, Eitan Mangano, Carlo PLoS One Research Article PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners used in oral implantology. METHODS: Two stone models were prepared, representing a partially and a totally edentulous maxilla, with three and six implant analogues, respectively, and polyether-ether-ketone (PEEK) cylinders screwed on. The models were digitized with an industrial scanner (IScan D104I®) used as a reference, and with four intraoral scanners (Trios®; CS 3500®; Zfx Intrascan®; Planscan®). Five scans were taken for each model, using each different intraoral scanner. All datasets were loaded into reverse-engineering software (Geomagics 2012®), where intraoral scans were superimposed on the reference model, to evaluate general trueness, and superimposed on each other within groups, to evaluate general precision. General trueness and precision of any scanner were compared by model type, through an ANOVA model including scanner, model and their interaction. Finally, the distance and angles between simulated implants were measured in each group, and compared to those of the reference model, to evaluate local trueness. RESULTS: In the partially edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best general trueness (47.8 μm) and precision (40.8 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.2 μm, precision 51.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 117.0 μm, precision 126.2 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 233.4 μm, precision 219.8 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. In the totally edentulous maxilla, CS 3500® had the best performance in terms of general trueness (63.2 μm) and precision (55.2 μm), followed by Trios® (trueness 71.6 μm, precision 67.0 μm), Zfx Intrascan® (trueness 103.0 μm, precision 112.4 μm), and Planscan® (trueness 253.4 μm, precision 204.2 μm). With regard to general trueness, Trios® was significantly better than Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®; with regard to general precision, Trios® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, CS 3500® was significantly better than Zfx Intrascan® and Planscan®, and Zfx Intrascan® was significantly better than Planscan®. Local trueness values confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Although no differences in trueness and precision were found between partially and totally edentulous models, statistically significant differences were found between the different scanners. Further studies are required to confirm these results. Public Library of Science 2016-09-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5042463/ /pubmed/27684723 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163107 Text en © 2016 Mangano et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mangano, Francesco G.
Veronesi, Giovanni
Hauschild, Uli
Mijiritsky, Eitan
Mangano, Carlo
Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study
title Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study
title_full Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study
title_fullStr Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study
title_short Trueness and Precision of Four Intraoral Scanners in Oral Implantology: A Comparative in Vitro Study
title_sort trueness and precision of four intraoral scanners in oral implantology: a comparative in vitro study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5042463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27684723
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163107
work_keys_str_mv AT manganofrancescog truenessandprecisionoffourintraoralscannersinoralimplantologyacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT veronesigiovanni truenessandprecisionoffourintraoralscannersinoralimplantologyacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT hauschilduli truenessandprecisionoffourintraoralscannersinoralimplantologyacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT mijiritskyeitan truenessandprecisionoffourintraoralscannersinoralimplantologyacomparativeinvitrostudy
AT manganocarlo truenessandprecisionoffourintraoralscannersinoralimplantologyacomparativeinvitrostudy