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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schmidt, Alexander, Klussmann, Leona, Wöstmann, Bernd, Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie
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