Cargando…
Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update
The aim of this clinical study was to update the available data in the literature regarding the transfer accuracy (trueness/precision) of four current intraoral scanners (IOS) equipped with the latest software versions and to compare these data with conventional impressions (CVI). A metallic referen...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7141355/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32143433 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030688 |
_version_ | 1783519180377554944 |
---|---|
author | Schmidt, Alexander Klussmann, Leona Wöstmann, Bernd Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie |
author_facet | Schmidt, Alexander Klussmann, Leona Wöstmann, Bernd Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie |
author_sort | Schmidt, Alexander |
collection | PubMed |
description | The aim of this clinical study was to update the available data in the literature regarding the transfer accuracy (trueness/precision) of four current intraoral scanners (IOS) equipped with the latest software versions and to compare these data with conventional impressions (CVI). A metallic reference aid served as a reference dataset. Four digital impressions (Trios3Cart, Trios3Pod, Trios4Pod, and Primescan) and one CVI were investigated in five patients. Scan data were analyzed using three-dimensional analysis software and conventional models using a coordinate measurement machine. The transfer accuracy between the reference aid and the impression methods were compared. Differences with p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Overall, mean ± standard deviation (SD) transfer accuracy ranged from 24.6 ± 17.7 µm (CVI) to 204.5 ± 182.1 µm (Trios3Pod). The Primescan yielded the lowest deviation for digital impressions (33.8 ± 31.5 µm), followed by Trios4Pod (65.2 ± 52.9 µm), Trios3Cart (84.7 ± 120.3 µm), and Trios3Pod. Within the limitations of this study, current IOS equipped with the latest software versions demonstrated less deviation for short-span distances compared with the conventional impression technique. However, for long-span distances, the conventional impression technique provided the lowest deviation. Overall, currently available IOS systems demonstrated improvement regarding transfer accuracy of full-arch scans in patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7141355 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71413552020-04-10 Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update Schmidt, Alexander Klussmann, Leona Wöstmann, Bernd Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie J Clin Med Article The aim of this clinical study was to update the available data in the literature regarding the transfer accuracy (trueness/precision) of four current intraoral scanners (IOS) equipped with the latest software versions and to compare these data with conventional impressions (CVI). A metallic reference aid served as a reference dataset. Four digital impressions (Trios3Cart, Trios3Pod, Trios4Pod, and Primescan) and one CVI were investigated in five patients. Scan data were analyzed using three-dimensional analysis software and conventional models using a coordinate measurement machine. The transfer accuracy between the reference aid and the impression methods were compared. Differences with p < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. Overall, mean ± standard deviation (SD) transfer accuracy ranged from 24.6 ± 17.7 µm (CVI) to 204.5 ± 182.1 µm (Trios3Pod). The Primescan yielded the lowest deviation for digital impressions (33.8 ± 31.5 µm), followed by Trios4Pod (65.2 ± 52.9 µm), Trios3Cart (84.7 ± 120.3 µm), and Trios3Pod. Within the limitations of this study, current IOS equipped with the latest software versions demonstrated less deviation for short-span distances compared with the conventional impression technique. However, for long-span distances, the conventional impression technique provided the lowest deviation. Overall, currently available IOS systems demonstrated improvement regarding transfer accuracy of full-arch scans in patients. MDPI 2020-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7141355/ /pubmed/32143433 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030688 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Schmidt, Alexander Klussmann, Leona Wöstmann, Bernd Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update |
title | Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update |
title_full | Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update |
title_fullStr | Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update |
title_full_unstemmed | Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update |
title_short | Accuracy of Digital and Conventional Full-Arch Impressions in Patients: An Update |
title_sort | accuracy of digital and conventional full-arch impressions in patients: an update |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7141355/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32143433 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm9030688 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT schmidtalexander accuracyofdigitalandconventionalfullarchimpressionsinpatientsanupdate AT klussmannleona accuracyofdigitalandconventionalfullarchimpressionsinpatientsanupdate AT wostmannbernd accuracyofdigitalandconventionalfullarchimpressionsinpatientsanupdate AT schlenzmaximilianeamelie accuracyofdigitalandconventionalfullarchimpressionsinpatientsanupdate |